Talk:State Policy Network

Fight against the ACA law & Koch brothers involvement

The Rachel Maddow Show just had a long segment on this organization and its concerted efforts at undermining the ACA law across the country. Maddow discusses the Koch brothers' involvement with the SPN. (This article doesn't mention them at all.) Look for the video tomorrow on the show's website.

Links provided by TRMS: State Policy Network: "Directory" - http://www.spn.org/directory/ Center for Media and Democracy: "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network" - http://stinktanks.org/national/

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Maddow's story is mostly fiction. The Koch's gave all of $40K to this group, spread out over 8 years. Considering that its budget is almost $5 million, it is obviously undue weight to make special mention of the Koch's. Roccodrift (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That's nice, but we can't use your original research to dispute sourced content. While the vast majority of SPN funding is dark money, multiple reliable sources confirm that the Koch brothers fund the State Policy Network through Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, many of them describing the network itself as "the Koch-funded State Policy Network". Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 23:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's one of several sources that are available [1] which, interestingly enough, also discusses the CDM report you are trying to use. Politifact looked at the evidence and concluded that "The evidence to prove that particular claim is thin." Too thin to make the claim in Wikipedia, I would say. Roccodrift (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That Politifact conclusion was actually about whether the Foundation for Government Accountability was a Koch brothers affiliated group. The source confirms that the Kochs did indeed fund SPN, which is all that was claimed in the edit you reverted. It isn't undue weight to briefly mention one of the funders. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It IS undue weight to single out the source of (far) less than 1% of their funding for special mention. Indeed, that is the epitome of undue weight. Roccodrift (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misreading undue here and misrepresenting percentages. Since much of the funding is dark money, it is probably impossible to know the exact percentage. Multiple sources describe SPN as "Koch-funded", so it is reasonable to have a single mention of them here. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 15:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits of Jan 1 2015

(Moved from my talk page - Formerly 98)

Thanks for your edits on State Policy Network. As you can see, I've done some editing on the article at various times. Don't get me wrong about my deletion of the George Will piece. I actually admire Will and I approve of what the governor did in Wisconsin. And I think the Guardian piece is noteworthy, albeit not especially so. Happy New Year. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I'm not quite following here. Any particular reason we're interested in Mother Jone's description of these events and not George Will's? I'm actually a liberal democrat, but this sort of one sided presentation of events is very troubling to me. We have way too many articles in the Encyclopedia that paint conservative political groups as conspiracies against the Rights of Man, and this one pretty much fit that bill before my edits. We're not here to promote a political viewpoint.

Your thoughts on why the inclusion of Mr. Will's comments was unacceptable? The article contains an extensive discussion of ACT 10, the protests against it, and generally describes it as a strike against the rights of workers. We should include commentary on the other side of that issue, or strike the detailed discussion of the implications of Act 10 and the response to it.

thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just what is Will saying about SPN? I don't see anything. (But bowl games are diverting me from full attention.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So I see what you are trying to say, but I'll throw the question right back at you. Exactly what is the synthesis you think I am making?

The Mother Jones article does the following:

• It establishes a tie between SPN and certain legislation
• It criticizes that legislation as a vehicle for indirectly criticizing SPN.

Because the tie between SPN and the legislation is already make by Mother Jones, adding Will's comments on that legislation is not WP:SYN. The connnection has already been established by Mother Jones and stated as fact in the article.

By including MJ's criticism of that legislation (which is only topical because it is an indirect criticism of SPN), adding favorable viewpoints of that same legislation becomes not only topical, but required by WP:NPOV.

I agree that the wording I added may not be ideal, but the article needs to be more than "Liberal magazine A said that SPN was working to develop legislation that limits worker's rights", "Liberal magazine B says that SPN is working to cut funding for education", "Liberal organization Progressive watchdog C says that SPN made an inaccurate political video" and so on.

I hate the Tea Party as much as anyone I know, but this article is over the top.

Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps considering the topic of the article will help. It is about SPN, not the various legislative measures that it supports. I agree that the article needs more balance, but what you describe is pure SYN. Source A says SPN promotes such-and-such legislation. Source B (Will) says such-and-such legislation has been as American as apple pie. The new conclusion (implied) is that George Will thinks SPN's support of the legislation is wonderful. But Will does not say this explicitly. (Your comment about the Tea Party is interesting. Sorta like what Pauline Kael once said about Nixon.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The chain of reasoning is oversimplified in your response. Source A not only says "SPN has promoted such and such legislation", it goes on to criticize that legislation as a vehicle for criticizing SPN. Source B gives a different POV on the legislation than that introduced by Source A. I don't think you've addressed this point. You can't allow criticism of the legislation from one source and then say that positive statements about it from another source are excluded by WP:SYN. Formerly 98 (talk)

George Will column

• First, I agree with Srich that the Will piece does not mention SPN so it is not relevant and should not be included. This article is about SPN, not about Walker's governorship. Readers interested in reading commentary on Walker's policies can readily click on the Walker link.

• Second, A distinction must be made between fact and opinion sources. The Mother Jones piece, while having a liberal POV, is still a moderately reliable fact source. Like most political columns, the Will piece is an unreliable opinion source (which can still be cited for its notable opinions). The next step is that reliably sourced facts cannot be balanced by opinion. As a general rule, first we give the reliably sourced and balanced facts, and then we give the balanced notable commentary about those facts. These are two separate analyses. In sum, the Will content does not balance the Mother Jones content, and if we are to include the Will content it must be balanced with notable liberal commentary.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, I was about to drop this until I saw your commnent referring to the Will piece as a political columnn, as if the Mother Jones article was simply straight up journalism. I think now I would like to take this up to the NPOV board. Because either I'm completely crazy, or you guys are viewing this through an awfully ideological lens. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course I can't stop you but it would strike me as being rather WP:POINTy. You would have to overcome both issues (relevance and balance) to get the Will piece in, but it sounds like you're conceding on the relevance front. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was responding more to the tone of the note than anything else, but looking at the edits to the article, I'm willing to accept it in its current form. Most of the extremely partisan language (such a "progressive watchdog group", "the governor was called "a front for the Mackinac Center" and the like) has been removed, though it is still troubling that the article draws almost entirely from sources that most objective observers would describe as liberal. As long as the partisan, election ad type language is not restored I'll consider this the amount of effort I am willing to put out on behalf of treating conservatives with some mode of fairness. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that SPN has simply drawn more attention from left-leaning media sources than from right-leaning ones. That's just how the ball bounces sometimes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I run into that a lot. There's always 1000 critics for everyone who has something positive to say, no matter what sort of entity one runs up against. But that being said, we can't allow our articles to look like something written about a local candidate for congress about his opponent. I don't even like these people, and I was embarrassed to find this in Wikipedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

All we can do is neutrally summarize what the reliable sources say. Like it or not, the consensus is that Mother Jones and the Guardian are reliable sources. Remember that our job is to aim for verifiability, not truth, and that it is definitely not our job to right great wrongs. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article

Content relying on this Guardian article was repeatedly removed with the explanation that the Guardian source is hopelessly biased. Frankly I find this absurd; The Guardian has a stellar reputation for fact-checking and its reliability has been affirmed time and time again on RSN and elsewhere in Wikipedia. We should have no difficulty coming up with neutral content that draws from this source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindall quote

HughD, I agree with Champaign_Supernova that the quote by Lindall, the AFSCME Council 31 spokesperson, isn't sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Just because he's quoted in the paper doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. This is simply a spokesperson for a local group that is predictably opposed to SPN's existence. This was a local paper discussing a local concern, hence the local voice. The fact that you didn't even include his name is evidence that he's not worthy of mention. And the quote is rather vacuous and doesn't add much substance to our article. And please don't edit war. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Without realizing that you two had commented, I restored a fragment of his comment. I think it is WP:NOTEWORTHY to the extent it gives a flavor as to what the criticism is about. – S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted HughD's edit which took the the comment from the spokesperson and converted it into a block quote. IMO, which I presume you (above) support, the full quote that HughD wants is UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"predictably opposed" Sure, to you! But you're a junkie on this stuff. This article is so WP:PROMO only a fairly sophisticated reader could barely image how anyone could disgree with such a wonderful organization. Where else in he article is it mentioned that a labor union or anyone else for that matter might not be totally happy with the subject of this article? Hugh (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Just because he's quoted in the paper" We are obligated to fairly present the breadth of viewpoints in RS. This article is highly deficient on that score. Hugh (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And you have to admit, if you were going to let one little camel's nose of alternative voice in, it's a heck of a perfect quote, how it fits into that last paragraph, picks up the franchise motif. Hugh (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have to admit that, and I don't admit it because I don't agree with it. (Unsolicited advice: never write "you have to admit" on Wikipedia, as it will tick a lot of editors off.) Reflecting all viewpoints doesn't mean quoting all people who have said anything about a topic. I feel you that the article might not have sufficient anti-SPN commentary; that might or might not be true (I haven't evaluated), but quoting a random local union rep isn't the way to fix the problem. There have been far more noteworthy anti-SPN comments made in reliable sources. You could start by reviewing the sources that are already cited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"random local union rep" The quote is from the designated spokesperson for the largest public employee union in Illinois. I had name, title and a few words of definition of the organization in text but of course that was quickly nuked. With your support I will restore it, thank you. Providing a direct quote of what an expert has to say about the subject of an article is a perfectly acceptable approach toward balance in WP. I'm sure you do not mean to hold every minor balancing edit hostage until a comprehensive solution is available WP:NOTPERFECT, WP:NODEADLINE. I have thoroughly reviewed the sources, and this quote is an excellent place to start. Hugh (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

With my support - what support? If you restore anything about this "with my support" / citing some sort of consensus then you have somehow misunderstood me. The fact that this guys is a rep for "the largest public employee union in Illinois" doesn't make him a subject matter expert on SPN. So no, I'm adamantly opposed to the inclusion of any content about this guy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you may have an alternative quote in mind? Hugh (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in particular comes to mind, though I'm certain I've seen stuff in in the past. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be more encyclopedic to include content summarizing the SPN's critics. Sure, we could include this one rather inflammatory (and low-substance) quote. But it would be better to include a representative sample of criticism and say something more along the lines of "SPN has been criticized by unions (and whoever else, etc.) for these reasons..." I think that would be more appropriate in scope and tone. I'll look for some references and workshop an addition on this talk page. But for now I'm going to remove the quote in its current form because it doesn't look like there is WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion at this point. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We are not going to corral criticisms into a "criticism" section WP:POVFORK. The best place for content is where it is most relevant. Here, a quote is included which gives context to the quote from the executive director of a Kentucky member organization regarding the franchise nature of the subject of this article. I look forward to collaborating on your article space contributions, but meanwhile, this article badly needs balance. Incremental edits by a fellow editor toward that goal may not be held hostage to some announced future "workshop" activity. Hugh (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being naive, but do these quotes belong here at all? Per WP:IMPARTIAL, which is a subsection of the WP:NPOV POLICY:

"A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view....The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

My read of this is that the article should make it very clear that the group has been criticized, but the process of making it clear and making clear what those criticisms are needs to be done in a way that neither casts doubt on the validity of those criticisms or lends them credence. We are not here to pass judgment on SPN. And Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. seems to me to unambiguously rule out quotations such as describing the organization as "string of rubber-stamp front groups...a franchise operation...They all repackage the same tired right-wing talking points and try to resell them to unsuspecting reporters and citizen.” This would be true whether there is local consensus to include it or not, as per WP:NPOV, "This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus."Formerly 98 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not being naive. Ok, great, based on your understanding, will you delete the direct quote from the executive director of the Kentucky member organization? Hugh (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Which one? I see the executive director calling it a franchise, but my impression was that both supporters and opponents of the organization agree that it is franchise-like, so I don't think the "heated dispute" criterion would apply here (?). On the other hand, SPN supporters would clearly dispute its characterization as "a group of rubber stamp fron groups" that "repackages the same tired right wing talking points". Or have I misunderstood your point? Formerly 98 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"both supporters and opponents of the organization agree that it is franchise-like" The article doesn't say that since the 2nd quote was deleted. Should we add back the union quote, just the "franchise" part, in order to document that consensus? I trust our readers, do you? "Try not to quote directly from participants..." How does this policy apply to opponents and not supporters in your view? Hugh (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, if I've misunderstood something I apologize. I don't really care whether you cut the "franchise" remark out of the article or not, it makes no difference to me. But if you are going to engage on the Talk page, please address my argument directly and don't put words in my mouth. Especially words that set up a straw man argument. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for. I'm asking you, given your understanding of the policy on quotes, how that policy might apply the the quote from the executive director of the Kentucky member organization? Hugh (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I can paraphrase your reasoning here. The Kentucky quote stands, because it's NOT disputed, which you know, because of another quote you don't want to add? Hugh (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I am trying to help you (as are other editors here, it seems). Since you're the person who wants to add content that is controversial, the burden of building a consensus to include that material is on you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I could interpret your comments that I'm attempting to "hold the article hostage" as a violation of WP:AGF. No one is trying to hold the article hostage. We're all here to improve it and collaborate to build a better article. I wouldn't denigrate the idea of a "workshop" either, because that's what we're doing here on the article talk page: workshopping the article together in order to improve it. Simply put, if you want your preferred edits to become a lasting part of the article, you need to get better at patiently and deliberately building a meaningful consensus here on the talk page. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Scanning through what is becoming a WP:wall of text I'll offer that Formerly is right on the need to summarize with a minimum of quotation. These essential info is that the union does not like SPN because SPN lobbies against union influence, etc. Besides, Lindall is basically making ad hominem remarks. So we say something like this: "SPN supports legislation to reduce the influence of government employee unions, which unions oppose.^{[Lindall citation]}" – S. Rich (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"...summarize with a minimum of quotation..." Are you talking about the Kentucky quote? Hugh (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The summary you offer is far from a parphrase. Hugh (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

SRich, I don't think you can use the Lindall citation (a spokesperson from one local union) as a source for the general proposition that all unions oppose this legislation in general. Not to mention that the unions' opposition is so obvious that the inclusion of vague language like this is practically a tautology. It's like saying the gun lobby opposes gun control laws without saying why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"...a spokesperson for a local group that is predictably opposed..." The founder of the Kentucky SPN member organization having pleasant things to say, isn't that rather local and predictable? Will you delete that quote? Hugh (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You're getting pointy, and you're missing my point. My point is that criticisms of SPN should be summarized in such a way as to present them in a strong and fair manner. The "strong" part of this equation means, in part, that the criticisms presented should be the most noteworthy available. When we showcase a relatively obvious statement by a local non-expert union rep, we signal to readers that there's nothing better out there. That actually weakens the anti-SPN perspective. Comparing Lindall to the founder of the Kentucky SPN organization is like comparing apples to oranges. You take the best that you have for each side of the debate. I guess ultimately what I'm saying is, if you have a problem with the Kentucky quote, then start a new discussion as it's unrelated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Four subsections, a dozen some paragraphs, many very short, maybe a couple dozen sentences: what would you say are the couple few most critical, or alternative views, or merely unflattering statements? 18 refs, which couple few would you identify as shall we say contributing to balance? Is the subject of this article free of controversy and criticism? Help me out here. Hugh (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If the article doesn't have enough anti-subject opinion then I don't think the solution is to include the most strongly worded anti-subject views. The solution is to review the anti-subject views out there, of which I believe there are many, are summarize them in a way that strongly but fairly represents their general substantive thrust. The summary can be highlighted by a specific quote or two that are most representative of that thrust and come from the most notable voices. If there is a diversity of anti-subject views then they all deserve this treatment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"review the anti-subject views" Done. Thank you for your suggestion! Hugh (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"a specific quote or two" Whoa, there! Getting a little ahead there. No need to quantify this just yet. As I'm sure you know fully well but other fellow editors reading here might need a reminder, our content is proportional to reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Proportional" doesn't mean more criticism = more real estate. Viewpoints are given weight in proportion to their prominence, not in proportion to their quantity. And "weight" isn't just about quantity of text. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You've reviewed rs, and there's maybe one or two critical things at most anyone might say about the subject of this article? Hugh (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I will look forward to your contributions. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: I see CMD as POV-driven and I've commented before about their wiki, ALECExposed, Stinktanks.org, SPN Halloween spiderweb, Koch Exposed, etc. And then we see Progress Now and CMD used as the source for the NPQ article. Only that article starts off with "Right-Wing" in the title and moves along with "think tanks" in scare quotes, "hard-hitting study", and "little more than fronts". It closes with 2 paragraphs which are simply opinion. The hard-hitting study comes out of CMD's PRWatch. Well that's fine because everyone and every organization has POV. But per WP:SOAPBOX "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." The "other aspects" of CMD (e.g., the heavy bias and lousy referencing) must be weighed when presenting factual material in articles. This is in keeping with WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources. We do not want the presentation of the fact to serve as the soapbox. – S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This section is for discussion of the neutrality of the article. Please start a new section for your concerns regarding your perception of extreme POV of particular sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aggregate revenue for SPN and its members

The Guardian must have omitted a decimal point in its story. All other sources, backed by actual documents, give a 7-figure annual revenue. I urge that we dump the Guardian info as not reliable in this particular instance. – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Guardian may be using SourceWatch for its info. Towards the bottom of the page they have a table of funding for SPN plus funding for the member organizations. Totals up to $83mm. (Could this be the source of the Guardian's info? That's fact checking for you.) Well, the Guardian is saying that SPN itself has $83 million, and this is clearly inaccurate. However, we cannot go around or beyond what we see in the Guardian to say "SPN and its member organizations have $83 million. As the source does not fit according to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS I'm removing it. – S. Rich (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is in general a neutral, reliable, verifiable source. "...the Guardian may be using..." The ref does not refer to or link to SourceWatch. Let's try to fix this with a more accurate paraphrase rather than a delete. Let's try a paraphrase without the imprecise "warchest." Hugh (talk)

"The Guardian is saying that SPN itself has $83 million..." No, it is not. From the source: "The State Policy Network (SPN) has members in each of the 50 states and an annual warchest of $83m..." Here the subject of the sentence is clearly "network." Here, "network" clearly refers SPN and its members. Hugh (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly not. In the Koch photo caption it says "The State Policy Network has an annual warchest of $83m drawn from ...." The subject in each sentence is the singular proper noun "State Policy Network". The Guardian has conflated the SPN budget with those of its various members to come up with the $83mm figure. (Which incidentally matches the SourceWatch number.) If the Guardian had said "SPN and its members have ..." that would be fine. (The sentence subject would be plural, consisting of the proper noun "SPN" and the common noun "network".) Since the Guardian does not say this, we cannot use its conflation. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Also, the SPN website talks about how each member operates independently and have their individual IRS 501c3 approvals. 20:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the Guardian ref could be more precise on this. I'll swap it out. Hugh (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"photo caption" The edit is to the article body. Let's focus on the text of the article and the text of the source, please, then move on to the photo caption. Hugh (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"network" You are taking an overly strict read of the word "network." "Network" is commonly used to refer to its constituent nodes in aggregate, and in such usage is singular. We both clearly understand the intention of the source. WP:WL Hugh (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of our editing is to give an accurate description of how much money SPN has, not how much money is available to all of the SPN members. With this in mind, the charity evaluators (NCCS, ProQuest, Charity Watch, Charity Navigator) are reliable sources -- and we can actually look at the SPN tax filings. Adding in the Guardian with its' conflated figure only confuses this one aspect of the article. (I am not suggesting that the Guardian be removed altogether as a source.) What we have now is fine. We cannot (and need not) go and tell the reader that the Guardian has conflated the numbers (because that would be our spin on the Guardian article). Nor can we say "all of the different groups that are members of SPN have $85mm to push their conservative causes" because the Guardian does not say that. (Again, the two $83mm sentences are particular to SPN itself.) Nor can we even hint that the organizations have made the money available to SPN to spend, hold, monitor, allocate, etc. "War chest" implies a single fund, and we know that this is not the case. Let's be accurate (and NPOV) and omit this tidbit. – S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree, "warchest" is non NPOV. Removed. Hugh (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you found two sources that repeat the $83mm figure. Still not an acceptable edit. Presenting this figure is off-topic because the article is about SPN, not what all of the other members are doing or what their total funding is. If we start putting that number into the text, the next thing is the activities of what the members are doing. This article is not Funding and lobbying of SPN and its members. – S. Rich (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you did there, take a simple edit to its extreme. No one is proposing converting this article into what it is not. I am confident you recognize that as the subject of this article is a national network of state-level organizations, and that you are sufficiently reasonable that you cannot possible take the position that no reference may be made to those member organizations. The subject of an article need not be the subject of every sentence in that article. Keep it real. Here, the content in questions is simple statement of the aggregate figure for the financial size of the network at a recent point in time. This is a highly relevant detail with respect to notability of the subject. This simple number is notable as reported in multiple reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TOPIC is useful. How about this, we can add the $83mm and the lobbying by other organizations to a Notes section at the bottom of the page. – S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a network. Aggregate statistics for the network are on topic. Hugh (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss further what to bump to notes as we get closer to article size guidelines. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

So I see a few problems here. One, the addition that I reverted states that "SPN and its affiliates reported raising a combined $83.2 million in 2011" But neither cited source states that. What both reports do is distance themselves from the estimate by attributing it to the liberal group that produced it. But here it went right in as a statement in Wikipedia's voice. And why not just lump SPN in with a few more conservative organizations while at it. If we group in the Republican party, we can surely get that number up into the billions.

The other issue is how is this considered a WP:RS but the independently audited financial statements of SPN require are not admissible? The financial statements of for profit organzations are considered RS across wikipedia, because 1) they are audited, and 2) because you go to jail if you lie in these reports. I don't see any difference here. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You're right, the profit/notprofit distinction is not the issue. The filings are primary docs WP:PRIMARY, check it out. They may be used on WP but they have limitations. Quickly, in general, a claim in a primary doc like these federal filings, of which there can be little reasonable doubt as to their authenticity, might be used for example to support a secondary source. A primary source like these are not in and of themselves notable unless a secondary source picks them up. We can't interpret a primary doc, we have to find a reliable secondary source that does the interpretation. Hope this helps. If not, ask. Hugh (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"neither cited source states that" Both refs said that +/- a paraphrase, before they were deleted. Hugh (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to Hugh, above, "network" is not quite correct. The better term, used by the Washington Post and now in the article is consortium. SPN is a distinct organization that engages in networking. That does not make it "a network". (We are now where near article size max.) Please consider my notes section idea and respond. – S. Rich (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Network, consortium, gaggle, passle, whatever you want to call it, take a breath. Are you seriously arguing that a statement about the aggregate, a simple financial aggregate statistic, is not admissible here under WP:TOPIC? Come on now. Will you be deleting the specific references to the Kentucky affiliate? I agree, let's leave article size to another day. Hugh (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the main problem here, as an editor on another article so eloquently put it, is that "criticism from ideologically oppositional organizations is too often predictable, vacuous, and adds nothing to articles". Shall we ask David Healy his opinion of the newest psychiatric drug? What does Hillary Clinton think of the Republican platform? Can we expect an objective and dispassionate analysis? In general the practice of indiscriminantly adding any and all criticism for which a reliable source can be found does not help make for better articles. Taken to its extreme, it leads to the "Criticism of Coca Cola Corporation" article, which until I edited it a few weeks ago included lengthy sections criticizing the company for offences such as not turning over their secret recipe to the govt of India so they could pass it along to competitors, and for not relabeling their bottles in Spain in Catalan in response to a request from a Spanish nationalist group. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that independent auditing makes this a reliable source, but we can do a RFC if you like. On top of that, the network received a high score from Charity Navigator for its financial transperancy. Its hard for me to understand how you can delete this and add a non-audited financial analysis by a ideologically hostile group in its place. Should we do the RFC? Formerly 98 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"RFC" Whoa, there. "Its hard for me to understand" give it time. You're right, the primary docs are audited and the journalists are not. You're right, the $83M figure will not be found in any auditted primary source document, it is a result of investigative journalism based on aggregating numbers from hundreds of filings. The $83M figure passed muster at several reliable source references. Sources need not be neutral, but let me ask, which source do you view as ideologically hostile? Hugh (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent contributions. We should establish the due weight of the 2013 numbers you added, and the rating you added, which normally means we need to find a news outlet that picked those facts up, so it's not just us talking about it WP:WEIGHT. Hugh (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if my language was inflammatory. No offense intended. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(no offense taken) Hugh (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOR may apply to your recent eidts, what do you think? Hugh (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's not get side tracked with 'independent auditing'. There are audits and there are audits. An organization with a 7 figure budget will have it's taxes and bookkeeping done by CPAs. The IRS might audit. But GuideStar and Charity Navigator simply look at the Form 990s to "evaluate" organizations. In any event, the $83mm figure most certainly comes out of the non-RS SourceWatch wiki. We might do an RFC about including it, but let's see if others comment first. – S. Rich (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources for the number you are trying to keep out of this article are the Huffington Post and Politico. Hugh (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate how you held off with your url contagion theory of unreliability as long as you did and taking WP:TOPIC and WP:SIZE out for a spin. Hugh (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me the Guardian added together the individual budgets of multiple SPN member organizations to get their figure. Obviously (unless the organization's IRS filings are off by ten-fold) SPN itself doesn't have an annual budget of $80 million +. I don't see any sources saying that SPN has control over the budgets of individual member organizations. SPN is a nonprofit organization of its own, whose apparent purpose is to help facilitate a network of other nonprofit organizations. We don't have evidence that SPN has fiduciary or strategic control over any or all of its component members. The Guardian looks like it took mathematical liberties we shouldn't repeat here. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian ref is not used here as per your objection. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"I don't see any sources saying that SPN has control over the budgets of individual member organizations." Great, because the article does not say it either. Hugh (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The SPN funds its member organizations. See "SPN...provided grants for financial support of its member groups." supported by two notable, verifiable, reliable source references. Try to keep up. Hugh (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Providing some funding and controlling the entire budgets of all member organizations are very different. Try not to be rude. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I am keeping up. The delay occurred because I was giving some money to the local chapter of the Sierra Club. But just because I and others have gave them money does not mean that I have any say in chapter or organizational affairs. When we include such information in WP, we are implying that such influence exists. Not encyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I note an UPI story was posted. But it does not matter that UPI has reported on this story. The issues are WP:TOPIC and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. So far the consensus (above) is to omit the information. To change the consensus the proposed material and edits should be posted here and discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Politico article says, "According to the [CMD] report’s analysis of IRS filings..., So the CMD report that Hugh wants to include is based on the exact same type of financial report that neither of you consider a reliable source when it is quoted from directly. I realize that we emphasize secondary sources here, but are we really going to take this so literally that we consider this document to be a reliable source only if it is viewed through the lens of an ideologically hostile group? I don't think WP:RS is intended to make us assassinate our brains. If your brother was accused of a crime and you wanted to establish an alibi, would you 1) ask his incredibly hostile ex-wife to check the video cameras where he works and report back to you, or would you just go look at the tapes yourself? Formerly 98 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is not one of the many sources used here. Let's focus on the article, thanks. Sources need not be neutral WP:BIASED, as you know, but let me ask anyway, what group do you view as "ideologically hostile" to who? Please note that no views or opinions of any of the sources are included beyond the broad consensus in reliable sources on the aggregate revenue of SPN and its members in one year, 2011. Do you perhaps view that number as unflattering to the subject of this article somehow? 07:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"...the...report...is based on the exact same type of financial report that neither of you consider a reliable source when it is quoted from directly" Well, I don't want to include it, but, you got the idea. Primary sources have some limit uses, but to be used as a stand-alone notable reliable source reference, the primary source needs someone out there to write about them that's not us. Hugh (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure where "let's focus on the article" from. I'm addressing the reliability of sources and the neutrality of the content here. What could possibly be more on topic?

According to the Wikipedia article you hyperlinked and the reliable sources quoted therein, "The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nonprofit liberal watchdog group based in Madison, Wisconsin.[2] CMD describes itself as a "non-partisan progressive watchdog group," focused "on exposing corporate spin and government propaganda."[3][4][5] CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org. In April 2014, CMD merged with The Progressive, an American monthly magazine of politics, culture and progressivism" So we have liberalism and conservativism. I don't think we would readily accept Rand Paul's assessment of the reasonableness and appropriateness of Hillary Clinton's actions as a reliable source for factual content, so why would we accept the criticism of SPN by a "Liberal", "Progressive" orgnanization for this same type of content?

"...why would we accept the criticism of SPN by..." Our most fundamental obligation is to fairly summarize the breadth of views in reliable sources. Sources need not be neutral WP:BIASED, in fact, in order to achieve balance, alternate views are often exactly what you need. Partisan articles are not built exclusively or even predominantly from sympathetic sources. By the way, in this case the financial statistic I am trying to get in is not a criticism, it is neutral. Hugh (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In reviewing WP:RS, it seems to me that the language regarding primary sources has become more restrictive than I remember it, so you are correct about that. However, I am going to put a request for input on the reliable sources board about this question, as I don't see how we can even begin to write articles about corporations unless we can use their SEC filings for info. Its a broad and important issue that goes well beyond this article. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted the question here. I tried to phrase it neutrally and would appreciate it if we can all sit back and see the commentary and input without trying to influence it. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that. That's great. I skimmed the responses and they are uniformly excellent, thank you to those editors. Hugh (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that you respected my request and did not jump in in an effort to influence the comments there. It looks like there is no support for my position, so I will let it drop. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is stretching into TLDR territory, so I apologize if I missed something above, but I am generally opposed to the inclusion of any primary-source tax statements, audited or not, unless there's a total absence of secondary sources. I can't quite tell what you guys are arguing about, but if it's the Guardian vs. the tax statements then the Guardian wins. On the other hand if it's the Guardian vs. other reliable secondary sources then please lay them out clearly, with links, so others can jump in and opine. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you the short version (along with my spin). This is the CMD 'report' [2] that the sources are talking about. (It is POV laden. For instance, there's a section titled "Another Tentacle of the Kochtopus".) So I posit: 1. The sources cited are too happy to cite the report, which has citing to SourceWatch. 2. The report is a conflation of the budgets of the various SPN members. And 3. besides being a conflation, the report is off-WP:TOPIC. – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources for this extremely simple, straightforward, widely document in reliable sources, basic financial statistic include Politico, the Huffington Post, the Nonprofit Quarterly, and UPI. You will be happy to hear, the report you are very concerned about is not used as a reference here. The statistic you are trying to block is a simple sum of the gross revenues from the federal flings of the subject of this article and its member organizations, about 50-some PDFs, but thankfully we don't need to worry about that, because reliable secondary sources did the heavy lifting for us. Why is it a problem that our sources synthesize? Are you arguing that sources may be spiked if they SYN? Hugh (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is that there are two "networks." There is the State Policy Network, a nonprofit organization of its own with a budget of its own. Then there is the lowercase "network," which is the group of associated nonprofits that SPN is involved with. The $83 million number adds up the budgets of the latter. We need to be careful not to confuse the topic of the article itself, SPN the organization, with the broader "network" SPN is affiliated with. In other words: "SPN, a nonprofit based in Virginia, has an annual budget of $7.5 million. SPN is involved with a national network of state-based policy think tanks. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, who aggregated the budgets of SPN member think tanks, SPN affiliates had a combined total of $83 million in 2013." That is what I believe these articles are saying. Now it's up to us to decide if the CMD-crunched numbers are notable here in the article about SPN the organization. What I think we're missing is an indication that SPN, the organization, has budgetary control over these member groups. You can add up all of the organizational budgets you want, but I don't think the CMD study is suggesting that SPN the organization has control over the $83 million figure. I think the study is noting the perceived collective influence of these groups, based on the amount of money involved. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources for this extremely simple, straightforward, widely document in reliable sources, basic financial statistic include Politico, the Huffington Post, the Nonprofit Quarterly, and UPI. Center for Media and Democracy is not used as a reference here. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"...budgetary control..." Neither the edit, nor any of the sources, make any such claim, and such a claim is not a pre-requisite for including this extremely simple, straightforward, widely document in reliable sources, basic financial statistic. WP includes many statements of the form, X donated/grant funds to Y, most without comment on level of "budgetary control." What is your basis in policy or guideline for this novel criteria? Hugh (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea is not so novel – it was discussed last month in-between bowl game commercials. But for basis, I think the first step is WP:PRECISION. We establish that the title of the article is SPN, not SPN and its cohorts. At that point we follow WP:TOPIC and keep the article focused on SPN alone. Moreover, since the CMD report mentions the Kochs (and Kochtopus) 84 times, that material belongs in Political activities of the Koch brothers. (Interestingly, that article mentions ALEC but once and SPN not at all.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources for this extremely simple, straightforward, widely document in reliable sources, basic financial statistic include Politico, the Huffington Post, the Nonprofit Quarterly, and UPI. Center for Media and Democracy is not used as a reference here. Please help us focus on the edit under discussion here and its sources. Please start a new thread with your concerns regarding Center for Media and Democracy. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your WP:TOPIC tactic is extremely thin. The subject of an article need not be the subject of each and every sentence in that article. WP has many examples. Let me know if you need some. Oh, look! In this very article: "...member groups located in all fifty states." (lede), "SPN and its member organizations were...", "Supporters and detractors of SPN have described the network and its member groups as...", "Policy initiatives supported by SPN members have included...", "...three one-time presidents of SPN member groups were..." We find a section entitled "Member organizations." Do you really mean to argue that any statement that includes the member orgs is off-topic? Can we please keep it real? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Perhaps not a critical point, but I think you have one reliable source here and not four.

• The first reference is Politico, and it does not directly support the information, it merely reports that someone else said it, carefully distancing itself from the report itself. Here Politico does not serve as a reliable source for the $82M figure, it merely serves as a reliable source that this is one of several statements made by CMD.
• The Huffington post article similarly attributes the $82M figure, carefully not stating that number in its own voice.
• Non-Profit Quarterly may fail WP:RS requirements for a "well controlled publishing process", as it relies on a"community of volunteer content contributors" for its stories.
• UPI takes responsibility for the statements and is a reliable source, so there is one solid source here.

• The other issue that I would be careful of here is the assumption that because something is reliably sourced, it automatically goes into the article. Consensus also comes into play here. The community needs to agree that the addition improves the quality of the article as well as being reliably sourced. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC

I agree, here UPI is a neutral, unbiased, verifiable, reliable source. Thanks for your support. Hugh (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As you are most certainly aware, I was not supporting your position but rather clarifying what the sources actually said. If your goal is to build a consensus for changes to the article, this sort of cheap mischarcterization of my position, which I have previously asked you to refrain from, will not help your cause. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"According to the Center for Media and Democracy..." While one might lift a ref that is suspected of biased to an in-text attribution, in this case since the Center for Media and Democracy is not a source, it is not a candidate for in-text attribution. Hugh (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

But all of the news articles you've added as citations are clearly about CMD's report. They are reporting on it, but the origin of the $83m number is clearly the CMD report. All of the sources you've added say so. I don't know why it's controversial to attribute the number to its original source (which is what all of the news articles do). Safehaven86 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you edit article space to add an in-text attribution that is not one of the references and, more importantly, a source you believe is not RS? WP:POINTY Hugh (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if the proposed edit with sourcing is clearly laid out here so we're all on the same page. I'm not exactly clear what is being proposed at this point. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and along those lines, Srich32977, you mention news sources citing the CMD report and you linked to the CMD report, but not to the news sources. It's the news sources that are important. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? I'd love to see the proposed content and sourcing so we can focus this discussion on a specific proposed edit. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Above you have an unusual number of contributions to this discussion for someone who now claims they do not know what is being discussed. A reminder, the topic is "Aggregate revenue for SPN and its members." In the article, please see subsection "Organization, finances, and activities," 2nd graph, "SPN and its affiliates..." Let me know if there is anything more I can do to help you. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a disruptive comment. Safehaven and I have asked for sources so we can understand and weigh in. Either provide the sources, or butt out. You're really beginning to irk me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see 2 Politico, 17 the Huffington Post, 18 the Nonprofit Quarterly, and 19 UPI. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We have 3 reliable sources (Politico, HuffPo, and NPQ) mentioning the $83.2 million number with attribution to CMD. We can do the same thing, citing one of these sources. (Politico is probably most reliable.) With attribution to CMD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Politico is more reliable than UPI? Hugh (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Side issue. You sure are a contrarian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As User:Formerly 98 noted above, UPI gives the aggregate revenue figure in UPI voice. Reliability is a concern always. Here some have voiced additional concerns regarding perceived extremism of source organizations. UPI is the source least likely to be viewed as "POV driven." The UPI source has the additional significant advantage that it allows us to keep the Center for Media and Democracy out of this content, an organization which some editors have very strong feelings about. Hugh (talk)

UPI improperly attributes to the Guardian, when it should have attributed to CMD. The bottom line is that none of these news organizations have fact checked the $83.2 figure, so we can't present it without proper attribution to the only organization that vouches for it, i.e. CMD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"...none of these news organizations have fact checked the $83.2 figure..." What is the evidence for that? Hugh (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Attribution implies the outlet isn't taking responsibility for the statement's accuracy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What??? Please cite policy or guideline. Politico, the Huffington Post, the Nonprofit Quarterly, UPI, and now The Guardian, all of these news organizations failed to check the arithmetic? Where are you getting this? Hugh (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Hugh (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:V. None of these sources say SPN's revenue was $83.2 million. They only say CMD says SPN's revenue was $83.2 million. We can't go beyond what the sources say. WP101. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

DrFleishcman is correct. News organizations fact-check their own reporting. News organizations also frequently report on what other groups are saying. Such is the case here. Politico does not say "The budget of SPN is..." Politico says "According to a new study by CMD, the budget of SPN is..." Politico is attributing to another source, meaning it is not Politico's own reporting, and they are not taking responsibility for the accuracy of CMD's statements. That's why I don't understand why this edit of mine [3] has been reverted. It seems pretty straightforward. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Attribution is acknowledgement, it is not a disclaimer for serious news organizations such as UPI and The Guardian. Hugh (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand V, thanks. What is your evidence to support your assertion here that "...none of these news organizations have fact checked the $83.2 figure..."? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, let's dive into the sources. Politico says: "According to the report’s analysis of IRS filings, the State Policy Network and its think tanks’ combined revenue in 2011 topped $83 million." Huffington Post says: "In 2011, the State Policy Network and its affiliates reported raising a combined $83.2 million, according to the Center for Media and Democracy." Nonprofit Quarterly says "The study suggests that the State Policy Network has grown into a well-funded system of state-level advocates, whose combined revenues in 2011 exceeded $83 million." UPI says "It has an $83 million budget drawn largely from individual and corporate donors and foundations, the Guardian said Friday." In all of these cases, it is clear the news outlets are not reporting this figure on their own, or taking responsibility for it. They are simply saying "this is what CMD found." It seems quite clear that the source of the $83 million figure is the CMD study, and that these other outlets are reporting on it. What is your argument for not attributing this number to its source? Safehaven86 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What is your evidence that the news organizations did not check the arithmetic? None of the sources say they did not fact-check the number. The most significant investigative reporting in the history of the subject of this article was conducted by the Center for Media and Democracy. It is to be expected that all news organizations following up mention that important work. That acknowledgement does not mean the news organizations throw their standards out the window. Hugh (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind in-text attribution. How about "According to The Guardian ..." ref'ed to UPI. Hugh (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If the most significant investigative reporting about this article's subject was conducted by CMD, why aren't we attributing it to them? It seems very odd indeed not to mention the group that in your view been the source of the most important coverage of SPN. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. It is not one of the refs for this sentence. It's not needed. It makes some people very, very upset. Why are you trying to add an in-text attribution, to a source that is not one of the references, and that you believe is not RS? Hugh (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet you want to add in-text attribution to the Guardian, which is also not one of the references...? By the way, I didn't say CMD wasn't RS in this scenario. I think you're conflating my comments about one of CMD's reports on another article with the CMD sources at hand here. I have no problem adding the CMD figures to this page, as long as they are properly attributed. I don't see why you're hesitant to attribute when you yourself are of the view that CMD has done the most important reporting on SPN. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"According to The Guardian ..." is paraphrasing what the ref, UPI, says, as per WP:V. But you know that. Deep sigh. Hugh (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, then how is saying "According to CMD..." not paraphrasing what Politico, Nonprofit Quarterly, and the Huffington Post say? That would be paraphrasing what all three of those references say. See my comments above--those three refs all say "according to CMD." Your refusal to attribute this information to its source is becoming increasingly baffling. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about where in V it says "Attribution implies the outlet isn't taking responsibility for the statement's accuracy?" Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Round and round we go. We're not making any progress. Hugh, I'm surprised that you're putting up this big a fight over a few words of attribution. But if you really insist on this then I suggest you try dispute resolution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest we drop this. In this discussion it is pretty much Hugh vs Everyone Else, there is no support for his changes, and another week of argument will not change that, especially as Hugh has taken to insulting those he is nominally trying to persuade. Given that there has been a very lengthy discussion of the issues, throughout most of which there has been only a single dissenting voice, I'd suggest that the NPOV flag no longer serves any purpose at this point and should be removed. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a section above for your views on the neutrality of this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Member organizations" section

Also, I would like to move this sentence to the "member organizations" subsection in order to address concerns of off-topic and to improve the focus of the financials section on the finances of SPN proper. Hugh (talk)

Fifty flowers bloom

This is an odd one. I believe the following source is self-published and therefore unreliable:

• Miller, John J. (November 19, 2007). "Fifty flowers bloom: Conservative think tanks—mini-Heritage Foundations—at the state level". Vol. 59, no. 21. National Review. pp. 42–44.

It was written by a professional journalist at National Review; however, when I looked into this source some months ago, I could find no evidence that it was actually published by NR. It's not in the NR archives. My best guess is that this article was slated for publication, then pulled, and later the journalist posted it on his own personal website. Or perhaps it was retracted after publication. However it happened, unless we can find evidence it was actually edited and published by National Review (and not retracted) then it is not reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your "best guess?" That a source is not available online does not make it unreliable. That you can't find a source with the googles does not make it unreliable. That you find a source on an author's website does not make it self-published. NR is indexed in EBSCO, but you're a busy man, I guess, and deleting is quick; to me more significant here is your delete 1st, then talk predilection WP:ROWN. Hugh (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. If you have evidence, by all means please bring it forth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone could email the author and ask if it was published in that issue. I've seen that done at other article talk pages. Alternatively someone could go to a library and check the back issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt a well known writer or public intellectual is going to post on his website something as published that wasn't in fact published. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's in EBSCO. Hugh (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

O.K. That's resolved. Good job Hugh! Capitalismojo (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tea Party rallies/research

In this Washington Post article [4], the only mention of the SPN I can find is "CAP has worked with some of the movement's key national players, who include bloggers such as Erickson and Michelle Malkin and the State Policy Network, a consortium of 57 conservative and libertarian think tanks." That doesn't verify that "The SPN member think tanks aided the tea party movement by supplying rally speakers and research." I've added a failed verification note for now, but I think that sentence should be removed unless better sourcing is added. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please keep reading. Hugh (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I read the whole article. If there's a portion of the article you think is relevant here, why don't you include it here on the talk page so other editors know what you're talking about? Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

p. 4 "Outside the Beltway..." Hugh (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kindly self-revert the tag. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Charity Navigator score

The score assigned a nonprofit by Charity Navigator is an proprietary artifact of Charity Navigator, Inc. A nonprofit's score as shown on the Charity Navigator website may not be lifted to a WP article, unless the score is picked up by a reliable secondary source. Hugh (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That sort of makes sense but...isn't it sort of like politifact's three pinocchios or a bond rating agency's AAA rating. It's their proprietary rating which they make public to be used. We mention politifact's ratings all the time and bond ratings are not entirely uncommon at corporation articles, I believe. I could care less, but presumably a ranking/rating is the opinion of the author, in this case Charity Navigator, it is certainly reliable source for it's own opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears in a number of 790 + articles, has there been discussion elsewhere that suggests it can't be used? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Those are good analogies. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Guardian and collaborators investigative reporting needs balance?

Why does the paragraph about the investigative reporting by The Guardian, in collaboration with The Texas Observer and the Portland Press Herald, need balance? Is it negative? Why is it notable that employees of an SPN member wrote an op ed questioned the motives of The Guardian? Do you believe that "The Guardian’s aim is to intimidate Americans"? Do you believe The Guardian "meant to undermine the freedoms of expression and association"? Does anyone believe this? Why is this in our encyclopedia? It is not worthy. It is not a significant response. I question whether there is anything here that needs balance, and if the best "rebuttal" we can find is simple-minded groundless assertions regarding The Guardian's motives, please let's skip it. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT. We have a long paragraph sourced to The Guardian's content, so it's appropriate to include a short paragraph from a noteworthy source that includes a response to that content. In general, the bulk of this article's content is sourced to pieces critical of the article's subject in largely left-leaning sources, so a short paragraph that reflects an alternative point of view is appropriate per WP:BALASPS. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about how the content sourced to the op-ed by the employees of the member org "balances" the investigating reporting content? In WP do we balance investigative journalism by including in our encyclopedia content written by the subjects of the investigative journalism which speculate on the motives of the news organizations? The Guardian is among the most trusted sources used in WP. The op-ed is not a response to the content of the investigative journalism; the op-ed does not respond to anything in the previous paragraph; it is a groundless attack on the motives of the news organizations. The op-ed goes on to say the Guardian is part of "the activist Left," "a deliberate, coordinated effort across the political left to silence Americans who speak against — and lawfully resist — the growth of government power" a co-ordinated effort which includes The White House, the Treasury Dept, the IRS, the Texas Observer, the Portland Press Herald, the Chicago Sun-Times, Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, and the Center for Media and Democracy. Really? This is a good source for us? The op-ed is so artless it is unworthy of inclusion in our encyclopedia. The content sourced to the op-ed written by the employees of the member org is not an improvement to the article. Hugh (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I provisionally removed the paragraph in question. You can find the last version in the archive at the end of the policy positions section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The opinion is clearly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We're not making any claims in Wikipedia's voice about the veracity or quality of the opinion, we're documenting what a noteworthy source published about it. We're not saying anything about the quality of The Guardian's reporting, we're chronicling that some subjects of the newspaper's reporting criticized the reporting. Seems quite notable to me. You're welcome to suggest an alternative summarization of the material. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Source: Rollins, Brooke; Davidson, John Daniel (December 13, 2013). "The Left's Coordinated Assault on Free Speech". National Review. Retrieved 5 June 2015. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We agree the propose content is not in WP voice and was attributed in-text. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Seems quite notable" Is there any evidence in reliable sources, beyond the view of these two authors who are employees of one of the subjects of the investigative journalism, that the Guardian's motive in the reporting was an expression of a co-ordinated effort to "intimidate Americans who support the work of liberty-minded organizations" and "to undermine the freedoms of expression and association"? Is this perhaps a point of view narrowly held by a very small minority? Hugh (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"criticized the reporting" The authors did not criticize the reporting beyond completely groundless, simpleminded speculation on the motives of The Guardian. They did not refute any of the findings of The Guardian and The Guardian's collaborators. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The source makes no reference to the subject of this article, the State Policy Network. The authors of this source are employees of a member organization of the State Policy Network, the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The source is not the State Policy Network's response to the reporting. I don't think there is enough substance in this source for inclusion anywhere in our encyclopedia, but might the proposed content be more appropriate for inclusion in our article on the Texas Public Policy Foundation if anywhere? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've provided an alternative summarization of the material. It's not our place to decide whether the authors' opinions are "groundless and simpleminded." Again, we're not putting the authors' opinions in Wikipedia's voice. It's a clearly attributed opinion. It's appropriate to report on their opinion, published in a noteworthy and reliable source used multiple times elsewhere in this article. As for whether this material belongs here or at the Texas group's page, this piece is clearly in response to the Guardian piece, which is about SPN, so it fits here, which is the same place the Guardian piece is discussed. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We agree the National Review in general is a reliable source for the opinions of authors. I don't think this article is worthy of us, it's that bad. We are asked to provide judgement in sourcing. Hugh (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any independent evidence in reliable sources, beyond the view of these two authors who are employees of one of the subjects of the investigative journalism, that the Guardian's motive in the investigative reporting was to intimidate those who support groups like SPN, and of undermining the freedoms of expression and association? Has this view received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"affiliate" The article distinguishes between member orgs (think tanks) and affiliate members (not think tanks). Which is TPPF? Hugh (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"it fits here, which is the same place the Guardian piece is discussed" Would you support summarizing the Guardian and their collaborators and the TPPF staff op-ed at the TPPF article? Hugh (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"this piece is clearly in response to the Guardian piece" The NR op-ed does not respond to the investigative journalism of the Guardian and their collaborators, it goes off on a tangent describing a vast left wing conspiracy to crush conservative think tanks. The sentence drawn from the NR post makes no mention of any of the claims of the investigative journalism. It is not a balance in any sense to the investigative journalism. It is not an improvement to the article. Hugh (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Guardian piece" By "piece" do you mean to refer to the Guardian's investigative journalism? Hugh (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Brooke Rollins and John Daniel Davidson of" Shouldn't we say in-text that Rollins is the president of TPPF by way of attributing the point of view and being transparent that this view is not independent? It's not like a NR columnist rose to the defense of the TPPF. Would you support adding Texas Public Policy Foundation to the citation as the agency parameter to further document that this is not an independent opinion? Hugh (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"an article published in National Review" NR is indexed by EBSCO. This source is not indexed. Did this article appear in the print version of NR? Should this be "an article published on the NR website"? Hugh (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to include content drawn from this source we are obligated to provide sufficient context to our readers to evaluate the content. Would you support adding a clause so our readers will have a better context and a clearer idea of the form of the argumentation of the authors? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

and said that The Guardian is part of "the activist Left," described as "a deliberate, coordinated effort across the political left to silence Americans who speak against — and lawfully resist — the growth of government power" which they said includes The White House, the Treasury Dept., the Internal Revenue Service, the Texas Observer, the Portland Press Herald, the Chicago Sun-Times, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin, and the Center for Media and Democracy.

Hugh (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that a new proposal has been posted for citing the Davidson/Rollins article,[5] let's restart the discussion with fresh eyes.

1. If the article is only on the website and not the print version (is it?) we need to say so.

• I'm not sure how to determine if the article was published in the print edition. It was posted under the National Review name, as opposed to the National Review WP:BLOGS section of the website. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That this source is not indexed in EBSCO is strong evidence that it never appeared in print. WP's article on NR explains that the content of the print version of NR is segregated under the heading of "NR Online." Hugh (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1. I basically agree with Hugh that while reliable, it is not noteworthy. Has anyone else taken note of it? I don't think the proposed addition says anything important about State Policy Network.

• I thought it was noteworthy because it shows that members of the SPN disagreed or were opposed to the Guardian piece and evidently found it important enough to respond to. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia's paragraph about the leaked grant proposals is neutral: it doesn't imply or suggest that SPN or its affiliates did anything undesirable, nor does it any positive spin. Therefore there is no need to add anything for balance.

• In general, I find the sourcing in this article to lean heavily toward the left. Much of the content is sourced to the Guardian and Mother Jones, both left-leaning periodicals. And the Guardian piece we're currently discussing is pretty clearly a hit piece/exposé. From article: "Conservative groups across the US are planning a co-ordinated assault..." "...to allow the public to reach its own conclusions about whether these activities comply with the spirit of non-profit tax-exempt charities" "Most of the 'thinktanks' involved in the proposals...engage in activities that arguably cross the line into lobbying" "radical rightwing campaigns" and so on and so forth. I thought including a sentence or two from a conservative source, National Review, which presents an alternative opinion, seemed fair. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your commitment to a neutral point of view. "hit piece/exposé" This is progress in terms of this talk page discussion to the extent that it seems you agree with Rollins and Davidson that The Guardian was trying to harm the subjects of their investigative journalism. None of the excerpts you mention are included in our article. "Conservative groups across the US are planning a co-ordinated assault..." This is not evidence that the The Guardian's investigative journalism is a "hit piece," rather it is their perfectly reasonable summary of the source documents they were reporting on. In any case, as you know, our sources need not be neutral. Hugh (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"I find the sourcing in this article to lean heavily toward the left. Much of the content is sourced to the Guardian and Mother Jones" Our article has 44 references, 2 to The Guardian and 2 to Mother Jones, and further, all content sourced to The Guardian or Mother Jones is attributed in-text. Hugh (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1. If SPN itself responded, or there is a reliable claim that the reporting was erroneous, we should include that. The Davidson/Rollins article is neither of those.

• Reading the Guardian article again, it looks like a response in contained in that article from SPN. However, it's not in our article. Perhaps we should rework our content on the Guardian exposé to include the SPN's response. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1. The article shows its authors in a bad light, because it is a poorly argued rant that uses a leak to suggest there is a conspiracy against both free speech and the right. Bad enough for SPN that a web search might associate it with this article, but probably unfair for Wikipedia to reinforce that connection.

• It's not our place to decide if it's a poorly argued rant. And SPN's search engine optimization is not our concern. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"It's not our place to decide if it's a poorly argued rant." Of course we are asked to use our best judgement in selecting high quality sources. When we use a source we are obligated to provide a summary sufficient that our readers can evaluate the content. We are prohibited from including a paraphrase so narrowly constructed that the content appears to our readers to be more significant than it really is. Hugh (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1. We don't and can't mention every op-ed about SPN, but if we did, this one would be near the bottom of the list, because of its lack of clear reasoning or conclusions that interest a general encyclopedia reader.

• Worth noting that it's not actually billed as an op-ed (I find that usually official op-eds are put under an "Opinions" or "Commentary") banner. Again, we're not here to judge its soundness of reasoning, but to decide whether it's a notable enough opinion to include, and whether including it will add appropriate balance to the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"we're not here to judge its soundness of reasoning, but to decide whether it's a notable enough opinion to include" We are asked to use our judgement in selecting high quality sources. In my opinion this source is so sadly lacking in grounding in fact that it is unworthy of our encyclopedia. Regarding notability, what is the evidence in rs of this view received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I find this addition to be valuable and on point. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you see as the value and what do you see as the point? Hugh (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Tracie Sharp redirect

Tracie Sharp should direct to Tracie Sharp. Needs fixing.

References

See the essay WP:WTAF. If she is notable then she will get her own WP article. In the meantime I have removed the wikilink which simply redirects back to this article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure does not equal intimidation

In December 2013, The Guardian, in collaboration with The Texas Observer and the Portland Press Herald, obtained, published and analyzed 40 grant proposals from SPN regular member organizations.

The grant proposals sought funding through SPN from the Searle Freedom Trust.

According to The Guardian, the proposals documented a coordinated strategy across 34 states, "a blueprint for the conservative agenda in 2014."

The reports described the grant proposals in six states as suggesting campaigns designed to cut pay to state government employees; oppose public sector collective bargaining; reduce public sector services in education and healthcare; promote school vouchers; oppose efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions; reduce or eliminate income and sales taxes; and study a proposed block grant reform to Medicare.

Brooke Rollins, president and CEO of the SPN member organization Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), and TPPF policy analyst John Daniel Davidson, in an article posted on the National Review website, said The Guardian was attempting to intimidate those who support libertarian organizations and to undermine the freedoms of expression and association, and said that The Guardian is part of "the activist Left," described as "a deliberate, coordinated effort across the political left to silence Americans who speak against — and lawfully resist — the growth of government power."

This last paragraph is basically a non-sequitur. The preceding paragraphs document The Guardian divulging (perhaps quite accurately) what appears to have been the SPN's actual policy position at that time.

Where is the intimidation? Where is the undermining? Where is the deliberate, coordinated effort to do anything other than report what is actually going on (a conspiracy widely enjoined by the Fourth Estate). In national politics an opened kimono is simply a risk of business. Your bad luck if there are actual bodies inside (in this case, I only see viable political positions that some people dislike, for good reason).

Regardless of political leanings, edits directed toward making this less of a non-sequitur would benefit this article. — MaxEnt 20:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)