Talk:MacArthur Foundation

List of MacArthur fellowships, 1981 to 1999

Liberal foundation

The Foundation's support for liberal causes is a key aspect of its grant-making. Please see the following sources:

• "Today the MacArthur Foundation is one of the pillars of the liberal philanthropic establishment." [1]

• "In one recent year, the five leading liberal philanthropic organizations--the Ford, Rockefeller and MacArthur foundations, the Pew Trusts and the Carnegie Corporation..." [2]

• "But given the foundation’s liberalism, it is clear that nearly all the MacArthur winners are on the left side of the political spectrum." [3]

• "The MacArthur Foundation, founded in 1970 by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, is one of the country's largest private foundations and provides research grants for mostly liberal causes." [4]

• "...liberal foundations (like the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation) support liberal shows..." [5]

It is frequently described as a liberal foundation, and the body of our article and the sources verify that. It's appropriate to include this description in the lead. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

New MacArthur Competition to Award $100 Million to Help Solve a Critical Problem of Our Time

Today it was announced that: New MacArthur Competition to Award $100 Million to Help Solve a Critical Problem of Our Time - See more at: https://www.macfound.org/press/press-releases/new-macarthur-competition-award-100-million-help-solve-critical-social-problem/#sthash.1LoRj1wv.dpuf

This should be added to the article. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a brief section on this. --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a WP:SECONDARY source for this material that's not a press release from the organization itself? Safehaven86 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Text removal

Please describe how this text is WP:UNDUE? This is the history of the organization, which seems highly relevant to the article on the organization. The sources include New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. Per WP:UNDUE, which significant viewpoints described in reliable sources are missing? Rather than removing this well-sourced information, you could instead add additional information if you believe that would correct weight problems. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The legal battle between the board and J. Roderick MacArthur is well-documented and important to understanding the history of the organization. John D. MacArthur was a conservative capitalist and wanted his money to go towards preventing government overreach. His son, however, was more liberal and warred with the board after his father's death regarding what positions the foundation should support (included environmentalism, which his father despised), and the result is that the foundation is now widely regarded as liberal (see the section #Liberal foundation). I honestly can't see what's POV or UNDUE about that. clpo13_(talk) 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Notably, this is not the first time X4n6 has tried to remove all mention of political ideology from the article: [6]. clpo13_(talk) 21:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Right. This is the history of MacArthur and it is widely documented and not controversial. See, for example, this source: "MacArthur left behind a neat historical irony: He was politically conservative and by many accounts quite greedy—Kriplen calls him a 'compulsive tightwad'—but the interests of the foundation have tended to be fairly liberal, in every sense of the word. There could hardly be a more liberal grant, for example, than the MacArthur Fellowship." If anything, the current content on the org's history could be expanded. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Both of you should please review both WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. I can see from your prior comments on this page that you've both been engaged in pushing this issue for a quite a while. Please stop. The sources you've referenced are, themselves either opinion pieces - or are from unabashedly conservative sources. They are not news pieces. So it violates both policies, as well as common sense, to report them as though they are factual. If you can find sources where the foundation itself claims to self-identify as "liberal," then that is very different. Foundations generally disclose their agendas - including their political bents, if any - in their mission statements. Any opposing viewpoints if they're presented, must be balanced, or they violate the article's neutrality. X4n6 (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Quite a while" meaning since yesterday, in my case. I don't need a lecture on what undue means, thank you very much. I'll also note that this is a review of a biography of John D. MacArthur. I should think his biographer would know his political bent. clpo13_(talk) 22:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

While that comment was more directed at the editor who, per the above section, has been pushing this since June 2015, the rest does apply to you. Please review the policies I've referenced. Your problem, snark included, is with them, not me. X4n6 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy gives significantly more weight to reliable secondary sources as opposed to self-published sources. Our articles contain what is verifiable--that is, what is contained in secondary, reliable sourcing. It's not disputed or controversial that MacArthur was founded by a conservative and became a liberal group (much like a number of other foundations, such as the Ford Foundation). It in no way violates our WP:NPOV policy to neutrally report on what many secondary and reliable sources say about this group. And FWIW, MacArthur's mission statement says it supports a "more just, verdant, and peaceful world" and that it is trying to solve issues "including over-incarceration, global climate change, nuclear risk, and significantly increasing financial capital for the social sector" --all of these are liberal causes, so again, there's nothing controversial or contentious here. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• It also appears you've cherry-picked your latest source. Contextually, it defines the term "liberal" very differently than you've suggested:

"There could hardly be a more liberal grant, for example, than the MacArthur Fellowship.

Most fellowships come with more strings attached than a grand piano, stipulating everything from what recipients can and cannot spend the money on to what kind of project recipients must complete and when. MacArthur’s fellowship requires only that recipients be U.S. citizens or residents with high potential who do something creative. Winners—typically 20 to 30 each year—can spend their $625,000 however they like."

However, if you both are convinced that I'm wrong in my interpretation of policy, you're certainly entitled to RfC this. Or if you prefer, I can. X4n6 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Also, there is also nothing in their mission statement that I have not also heard espoused from several "conservative" sources. There's also nothing which expressly states they are a liberal or progressive organization. X4n6 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What would you suggest we include about the organization's history? Nothing? If you have issues with the current sourcing, take your pick of the myriad other sources available. For example, the book Inside American Philanthropy: The Dramas of Donorship excerpts here. It's clear and unambiguous that an ideological and familial battle on the board led to the foundation's current set-up. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but it's a fact, and two out of three editors on this page think the content in question is fine, yet you have edit-warred it out of the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would support an RfC on this. I suppose I can see your point about calling the foundation liberal, but it's clear that it supports causes that are seen as liberal, including environmentalism, which as I said above, was something the elder MacArthur was against. And there are good sources regarding the difference of opinion between John MacArthur (and his associates on the board) and his son. The legal battle is a big part of the foundation's history and should certainly be mentioned, though it needs to go into more detail so as not to give the impression it was purely about ideology (see [7], especially the paragraph starting with "But feuding"). clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Since the history of the foundation appears to include a reliably sourced, philosophical schism between John D. and Rod, I believe some very brief information about that schism could be reasonably included in the history section. But I also don't see how it is relevant to the activities of the current foundation. Especially, since father and son - and the board members they warred over - are all long gone. A review of the current board's composition reveals: lots of academics, a healthcare tech venture capitalist, a former internet investor, now academic and a banker. Not a single think tank member, political party official or activist among them. The closest is Stasch, who for a time worked for a former local mayor. Also, to use terms like "liberal" or "conservative" as pejoratives, would violate the article's neutrality. So what is the purpose of attempting to claim a political agenda? No value, or relevance, has been offered. And here's what the foundation says about what it supports:

"We work on a small number of big bets that strive toward transformative change in areas of profound concern, including the existential threats of climate change and nuclear risk, the challenges in the U.S. of criminal justice reform and in Nigeria of more effective and legitimate government services, and bringing more financial capital to the social sector.

In addition, we maintain just a few enduring commitments: strengthening our hometown Chicago, where our civic leadership and commitment is deep and unwavering, and advancing journalism and media as a foundation for critical thinking and informed action in a democratic society.

We also make awards to individuals for extraordinary creativity through the MacArthur Fellows program; for institutional support through the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions; and for solutions to critical problems through 100&Change."

What do you identify as "liberal" there?? Their climate change concerns? -No. Nuclear risk? -No. Criminal justice reform? -No. Concerns over Nigeria? -No. I'll also presume no overt agenda in strengthening their hometown, trying to improve the media, or providing grants to creative individuals and institutions; or problem solving.

So if you still feel there is a basis for the claim that their current funding has some clearly identifiable political agenda, please explain. X4n6 (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you assume the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are automatically pejorative? And why should an organizations history be ignored simply because it's not relevant to its present activities? That schism is absolutely relevant because it determined the direction the foundation took. If John MacArthur had left clearer instructions on how his money was to be spent, the foundation would likely have supported very different causes. clpo13_(talk) 15:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Liberal" and "conservative" are not "automatically" pejorative. But in this article, they're clearly being used as contextually pejorative. As we've already discussed, that violates neutrality. Further, you won't find anywhere where I've argued the foundation's history should be ignored. I've said it should be addressed, just not excessively - especially as no link to the foundation's present activities has been established. And your suggestion that the foundation would be functioning differently today if John "had left clearer instructions" is a case of "what/if" - and per WP:BALL, Wikipedia does not engage in speculation. X4n6 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What about the current article's content is pejorative toward liberals or conservatives? The article's history section doesn't appear to me to "take a side"--that would be a problem, obviously. It merely relates a shift in the organization's ideological bent. It makes no value judgement about that shift, or about the merits of any particular political ideology. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten off track. The current composition of MacArthur's board of directors has precisely nothing to do with whether or not we should include reliably sourced, widely known facts about the organization's history in this article. We have well-sourced factual content about the group's history that I have presented below. MacArthur is widely known as a case study in donor intent. As far as I know, no one has brought forward sources disputing this account of the group's history. And no one seems to have brought forward an alternative suggestion for how to present the group's history. The sourcing is good, the wording is neutral. There is no good reason to censor this material from the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary, this track is precisely where we need to be. The article is about the MacArthur Foundation. NOT the MacArthur Foundation's history. That would be an entirely different article. To the extent its history is minimally relevant to the current work of the foundation, it's inclusion is reasonable. Beyond that, it's not. You seem to have forgotten that UNDUE and POV still apply, your sources notwithstanding. If you disagree, I'll remind you again to please review both policies. X4n6 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you point me to a Wikpedia policy that says articles should focus on present day activities rather than history? Wikipedia:Recentism advises not focusing too much on recent events, but instead giving historical context. That surely seem appropriate here in an article about an organization whose history spans many decades. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

Here is some proposed content for an RFC:

"John D. MacArthur originally set up the MacArthur Foundation for tax avoidance reasons. Between 1979 and 1981, John's son J. Roderick MacArthur, an ideological opponent of his father with whom the elder MacArthur had an acrimonious relationship, waged a legal battle against the Foundation for control of the board of directors. The younger MacArthur sued eight members of the board, accusing them of mismanagement of the Foundation's finances. By 1981, most of the original board had been replaced by members who agreed with J. Roderick MacArthur's desire to support liberal causes. This ultimately resulted in the creation of what, in 2008, Martin Morse Wooster called 'one of the pillars of the liberal philanthropic establishment.'" In 1984, MacArthur again sued the board of directors, asking a Cook County circuit court to liquidate the entire MacArthur Foundation. He dropped the suit later that same year when he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer." Safehaven86 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Please see above. Again, this exceeds what is needed: and for what purpose? It could easily be condensed to a single sentence similar to this: "Father and son had an acrimonious relationship because of their different political beliefs. After his father's death, Rod successfully reshaped the board to make it less reflective of his father's influence." I'm sure that can be found in one or two reliable sources. But adding so much more becomes undue. Especially in an article this size. X4n6 (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You can propose specific text and sourcing (not sure if what you wrote above is a formal proposal or just a rough idea) and we can discuss that here, or I can open an RFC regarding my proposal above. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've indicated, while I'm fine with discussing this and reaching some consensus prior to adding anything to the article, I am not fine with continued edit warring or posting prior to consensus. So I've removed your recent edits. I think we all need to agree to that procedure so that we can edit collaboratively. Once consensus is reached, we can add the agreed-upon version. X4n6 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Clpo13, I'll respect what you chose to remove. But I do agree with you. History is important. But if the history becomes excessive, it should be a separate article. It should also be condensed, per UNDUE. So it looks like we're saying the same thing. X4n6 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Wooster quote

I believe we've had a discussion before on this page about this content. It is attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and it looks like two editors favor its inclusion while one opposes. If someone wants to start an RFC to garner further participation, that might be a good idea. But it looks like as of now, we have a WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We have had this conversation before. I'm glad you've expressed that your views haven't changed. I also have no objection to an RFC. Actually I think it would be a great idea. Short of that, we also don't have actual CONSENSUS, until all parties have discussed the edit on this page. But if you believe Wooster is a reliable, unbiased source who doesn't violate WP:UNDUE, then, per WP:BALANCE, I'll add RS that disputes that conclusion. X4n6 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Re. this edit Sourcewatch is not WP:RS per WP:UGC. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Unlike IMDB and others, SourceWatch hasn't been declared user-generated, because it isn't. You can't edit it. Despite the wiki-like format, the contributors are professional writers working with the Center for Media and Democracy and per their own website[8]:

"The findings of CMD's investigative journalism are regularly cited by the leading national and state newspapers in the U.S., including the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Washington Post. CMD's reporting is credited by news shows on major broadcast stations including HBO, Showtime, PBS, NBC, CBS, and others, and has also been featured on in-depth news programs, such as Moyers & Company, Democracy Now, and the Thom Hartmann Show, as well as NPR and other public broadcasting agencies, such as the BBC and CBC."

So, per the Exceptions section of UGC, which you apparently overlooked, I'm removing the unreliable tag. X4n6 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can edit it. See this link. Sourcewatch explicitly says here "SourceWatch is a wiki, meaning that anybody can easily edit any article and have those changes posted immediately." This absolutely disqualifies it as an acceptable source per our WP:RS policy. And check the WP:RSN archives, which list numerous discussions (examples here and here), where the consensus was that SourceWatch is user-generated and unreliable. I can start a new RSN discussion if you'd like. You may not like the Wooster quote, but that's not an excuse to add poor sources and non-neutral language to the article. Instead, you could try to convince other editors that the Wooster quote doesn't belong. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact is, all wikis are not automatically disqualified. As I've already pointed out to you - and is clearly explained in WP:UGC, which says: "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." This edit is sourced to a professional writer, Bob Burton who is a published author. He also originally wrote: "Wooster singles out the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Macarthur Foundation as foundations that "continue to fund causes their donors would have opposed.".[9]. But Burton doesn't stop there. He continues for several paragraphs with several reliably sourced examples. So Wooster isn't reliable, RS sources and an author confirmed it and the same WP policy you pointed to, says SourceWatch is a perfectly legitimate. But if you insist on including Wooster anyway, I'll insist on including RS claims about him. That's BALANCE. I'm confident other editors would agree. But if you choose to forum shop, that's also something editors will likely take notice of. X4n6 (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you don't think Wooster is reliable does not somehow make Sourcewatch, a user-generated wiki, acceptable for us to use. It fails WP:RS, plain and simple. I ask you again: if you don't think Wooster is reliable, make your case here and we can discuss it. Adding Sourcewatch as some sort of counter to the Wooster source seems a bit WP:POINTY. You've been warned by an administrator for edit-warring on this article before, so your admonition to me to "not edit war" is taken with a significant grain of salt. I would strongly suggest that you keep a cool head and engage in discussion here. Since you are confident that other editors would agree with your assessment, I would suggest finding some who do. Maybe try WP:3O. Update: I went ahead and requested a WP:3O. Hopefully someone will weigh in here. For the third opinion giver, here is the diff of the disputed content for your reference. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is clear that Wooster is well-known for claiming that foundations veer from their conservative founders to espouse liberal causes. So if we quote Wooster, without pointing that out, that violates WP:WEIGHT. Also it's beginning to look a bit like a case of WP:LISTEN when I consistently tell you that WP:UGC expressly does not prohibit all wikis and notes exceptions that SourceWatch passes. You never respond to that point, you only ignore it. Accept where you attempt to threaten? Seriously? I've already said I'd welcome an RfC. But whatever forum you'd like to take this to is fine as well. Also, with this edit, it appears I don't need to go far to find another editor who agrees that Wooster shouldn't be used. X4n6 (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If "the evidence is clear" for this statement, surely you can find a reliable source which presents that POV. If the only place you can find that statement is a partisan wiki, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The point about partisan sources is exactly right. Therefore, using your same argument, since Wooster is biased, he doesn't belong on Wikipedia either. X4n6 (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X4n6, perhaps you missed WP:BIASED, which says that sources are not required to be unbiased and that biased sources can be reliable in certain contexts (such as attributing something someone said). Admittedly, I was not aware of Wooster's politics previously, as it didn't come across in the source, nor did it seem that he was being critical of the foundation. Anyways, it's a moot point. Since you've decided he's unreliable, I've removed all information sourced to him. Now we're missing some important context, but I suppose that's the price we have to pay in order to keep this article neutral. clpo13_(talk) 05:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• "that's the price we have to pay in order to keep this article neutral." Exactly, clpo13. It's not a question of WP:BIASED, It's a question of WP:BALANCE. Period. X4n6 (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that removing all information from sources from articles penned by Wooster is the answer. He's written quite a bit on them in various outlets, and seems to be a philanthropic historian (he is described as an historian by the Wall Street Journal). We should be able to solve any issues with citing him via WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. In this book, for example, he is described as a "conservative commentator." We could therefore qualify his statements with "historian and conservative commentator Martin Wooster..." Safehaven86 (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I am, of course, willing to amend my position. Attribution sounds like a good compromise. clpo13_(talk) 05:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will add back the Wooster information with attribution. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If we restore Wooster, simply calling him a "conservative commentator" isn't sufficient. We'll also have to restore the information that he's famous for making these kind of claims. X4n6 (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, this edit requires a sign-in. So you're going to need another source. And at best, he is a conservative historian - if his credentials as a historian can be established. What are his academic degrees and what are they in? Please provide reliable sources before adding that claim. X4n6 (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources that are paywalled or require registration are allowed, per "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." And we needn't establish his credentials as a historian--that's not our job--we just need to report what the WP:RS say per WP:V. WSJ is reliable, and they called him an historian, so we can too. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your assertion that the WP:UGC exception applies to Sourcewatch is quite questionable. The policy says "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." That is just not the case here. There is no byline on the article, or editorial attribution. All we have is a wiki edit history, which only proves the point that this is an unreliable user-generated source. None of the users who've edited the article appear to be credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. It is just not a reliable source. If Wooster is famous for making these claims, I'm sure that information will exist elsewhere in non-wiki sources. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Pleased that you finally acknowledge what WP:UGC states, which is that: ""Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." The editorial attribution is visible here. Burton is also credited as editor of the Center for Media and Democracy here, here, here, here and here. So neither the Center for Media and Democracy or Bob Burton cannot be disqualified as reliable sources. X4n6 (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on this edit, it doesn't seem that you understand WP:SOURCEACCESS. Specifically, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Even if there is a log in required, it is a reliable source. Moreover, I'm having no trouble viewing the source, and I'm not a subscriber to the WSJ and never have been. It could be an issue with your browser. In any event, the reliable source should be restored per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten that your original claim was that "None of the users who've edited the article appear to be credentialed members of the site's editorial staff?" That claim was conclusively disproved here. So before making another claim, you should first acknowledge that your prior claim was, in fact, wrong. But now you're asking us to rely on you to accurately report the contents of a subscription-only article? I should also point out that, on this very issue, you have just recently tried to pass off this claim from a source which itself acknowledges it is an opinion piece. So no, given the problems you've already displayed with separating what you'd like the sources to say from what they actually do say, I don't believe independent verification of your sources is in any way unreasonable. As to your theory that my browser is responsible for my inability to view this article? Sorry, but I use four browsers - they all say this is a subscription-only article. As Clpo13 suggests below, you can either provide a pdf or request assistance at WP:RX, so we can independently verify the content. And context. Besides, if Wooster is really a historian, to quote you: "I'm sure that information will exist elsewhere" in non-subscription sources. X4n6 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

X4n6, if you're really concerned about what the WSJ source says, ask Safehaven or someone at WP:RX to send you a PDF or screenshot of the article so you can verify it. clpo13_(talk) 16:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Clpo13, I agree. Safehaven should provide a pdf or screenshot, or request assistance at WP:RX. Likewise, until we have that verification, we should hold off on including that statement and source, per WP:NORUSH. X4n6 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I verified the source just fine. I can see the whole article as a WSJ subscriber, but you should also be able to see the relevant preview of the article by typing "martin morse wooster site:wsj.com" into your browser. The relevant article preview snippet is coming up for me as result #5. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It may surprise you to discover that what you claim to see as a subscriber doesn't matter to me. As an editor, I would like to see for myself what is claimed. For that matter, I'm not sure you understand what the question is. Where does the source say Wooster is an historian? Using your method, I still only see the very first section of the article. Nor can I see if it's a news article or an opinion piece. More to the point, if he is indeed an historian, why aren't we just using another RS that says so? If it's true, surely other sources besides one WSJ subscriber-only article must make that claim, right? X4n6 (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This is getting tedious, so I went ahead and quite easily found two academic book sources which refer to him as an historian. Safehaven86 (talk)

Which begs the question of why you didn't just do that in the first place? X4n6 (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. It isn't entirely clear what the question is. If it is whether Sourcewatch is a reliable source, I would say to take that question to the reliable source noticeboard, and would point out two issues with Sourcewatch. First, the matter of the question to which they are user-generated and so unreliable is a reliable source question, but also, their parent company, CDM, is unashamedly liberal and does not claim neutral point of view. I also note that Clpo13 has offered an opinion. If there still is a question, state it clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: Thanks for weighing in. I just made an edit to the article without realizing you'd already commented here. Yes, the question is whether Sourcewatch can be used here. Since it is an WP:RS question, it does make sense to take it to the relevant noticeboard. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13: what is your opinion on the reliability of Sourcewatch? Do you support taking this discussion to RSN? Safehaven86 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd support taking it to RSN. I don't have an opinion on its reliability, though I don't think it's necessary to use at all. We shouldn't have this sort of "Alice says this, but Bob says Alice is biased, but Carol says Bob is biased, but... [ad infinitum]" point and counterpoint just to have a sense of balance. Either Wooster is reliable or he's not. We don't need to confuse the reader by casting doubt on him because Sourcewatch doesn't like his politics. Maybe Wooster should be brought up at RSN, too, since his credentials have been questioned. It's strange how this went from Wooster's "pillars of the liberal philanthropic establishment" comment being undue ([10]) to Wooster himself being POV and unreliable ([11]). clpo13_(talk) 20:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, makes sense to me. Per WP:BIASED, reliable sources can be biased, although we should always keep WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in mind. There seems to be an argument here than Wooster is not reliable because he is conservative. I don't think that disqualifies him as a source; many people are conservative or liberal or what have you and their opinions are notable. We've described him as conservative, which seems enough to me. I am specifically interested in whether Sourcewatch is WP:RS because that's the question at hand here--no one seems to have said Wooster is not a reliable source, just that they don't want to include his quote because they view it as WP:POV. I'm not challenging the reliability of Wooster, so if someone wants to bring that to a noticeboard, fine, but it shouldn't get all wrapped up with the Sourcewatch issue. Two separate sources, two separate issues. I'll ping people here when I start a thread at RSN. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have questioned Wooster's reliability. Just as you've questioned SourceWatch, because you don't like their liberal bona fides. And I'm happy to take the question to a noticeboard. But you should know my questions about Wooster, unlike yours about SourceWatch, have nothing to do with his political bent. That's where we differ. X4n6 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the SourceWatch source, as SourceWatch is certainly not a reliable source. It is such a problematic source that I regularly search to see if it is being used as a source so that I can swiftly remove it. It is as reliable as Conservapedia or any other editable-by-the-public wiki platform with an ideological axe to grind, that is, not at all. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So you have unilaterally determined what is a source - without providing any basis, policy or otherwise? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You may want to review the conversation above before contributing further. You are certainly welcome to join the discussion, but you are being reverted until you can provide more substance to your view than just the view itself. X4n6 (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion above, and SafeHaven is correct that SourceWatch is not allowed per WP:USERGENERATED. It is a wiki which anyone can edit. I could edit it right now, in fact, and then add it on Wikipedia as a source for whatever I wanted. I could create my very own source to say whatever I want it to say, then link back to it as an echo chamber. That's why it's a problem. There is no apparent editorial control or reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, which are required under WP:RS. Our policy on reliable sources is quite clear about that. SourceWatch is quite clear about how anyone can edit it. You may have it confused with PR Watch, which is bylined and has editorial control, and which is also a product of the Center for Media and Democracy. That can be used as a source in certain contexts, but SourceWatch cannot. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have reviewed this discussion, then you are aware that, not only does WP:USERGENERATED provide an exception for some wikis - but this quote is sourced to the editor of the website, who is a professional journalist. So this is a perfectly legitimate edit, as has already been established here. You still have provided no substance to your objection, nor any response to what has already been determined. This may well end up at a noticeboard if we don't reach consensus. But it won't be solved by you trying to edit war. So please stop and discuss your concerns here, but do not remove any sources from the article again. X4n6 (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The burden is on the editor who wants to add disputed material to the article. You need to convince others that is should be added. You haven't done that. There are multiple other editors here explaining why SourceWatch isn't reliable, and you're just choosing not to hear it. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring policies that defeat your position in favor of those that help you is nothing new. Neither is the fact that you've found another user to tagteam "consensus." But if, despite policy, SourceWatch is ultimately found unreliable, then next we'll determine if Wooster meets the same standard. X4n6 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For profit insurance controlled by not-profit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Foundation states

In the past, many state insurance regulators have had serious concerns about allowing for-profit insurance companies – as opposed to mutual insurance companies – to be ultimately controlled by non-profit entities.[citation needed] In a famous case regarding this, the MacArthur Foundation was forced to divest itself of Bankers Life and Accident.

JDE 79.78.218.203 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus below L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

---

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation → MacArthur Foundation – "MacArthur Foundation" has over a million Google search results, vs. only 300k+ for "John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation." Also, this page was retitled to the foundation's full name back in 2007, but WP:COMMONNAME overrides needing to use the full name. A similar move discussion recently came to that conclusion, for Javits Center.

While the full name may be known to viewers of PBS or listeners of NPR, most media outlets use the simpler "MacArthur Foundation" in most mentions, such as the Chicago Tribune. This 2018 article uses the full name in the opening, but this one from 2017 does not use "John D. and Catherine T." at all, and the same goes for this 2016 article. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support WP:COMMONNAME .-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. Even their website prefers MacArthur Foundation and only uses the full name at the very bottom. clpo13_(talk) 18:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.