This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donors Capital Fund article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This content does not belong in the article with the current level of sourcing:
"Donors Capital Trust was the largest of the seven largest funders of the eight leading nonprofit organizations and think tanks in the anti-Islam movement in the US between 2001 and 2009, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. A follow-up analysis in 2015 found that Donors Capital Trust was the largest of eight funders of the ten leading anti-Islam organizations in the US between 2001 and 2012."
Use of the term "anti-Islam" is contentious and non-neutral. The sources for this content are not adequate.
These four sources--two CAP studies, an oped by the CAP authors, and a Nation piece--are not sufficient for the claims being made here. Safehaven86 ( talk) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about how this page reads. The page has very little to do with what Donors Capital Funds does as an organization but mostly covers controversies and critiques from its opposing side. This seems undue and irrelevant. We wouldn't put conservative critiques foremost on pages of progressive organizations. This page needs to be seriously reworked. DaltonCastle ( talk) 05:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
DT & DCF are not just any old funder of the climate counter-movement, they are THE LARGEST funder, clearly stated in the well-formatted, reliable source, with in-text attribution for possible concerns of bias by some editors as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is one of if not the most significant aspect of the notability of DT & DCF. To summarize the source as "a funder" seriously diminishes the notability of the subject and is a gross violation of NPOV. Hugh ( talk) 05:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think there was some confusion there. I am saying this article currently reads like a progressive watchdog release, which is biased. And this absolutely is WP:UNDUE. DaltonCastle ( talk) 05:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I did not mean to come across as rude there if that's what it seemed like. What I'm saying is that we can't give this kind of coverage on far-right pages and not on pages relating to the idealogical opposite. Realistically, this kind of coverage can be added onto every political organization page with some bias. DaltonCastle ( talk) 06:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the "leftist/progressive watchdog" angle. This article was thoroughly combed over by editors on both sides of the political spectrum in February, and if anything it seems pretty sterile to me. Dalton, where is this criticism you're referring to? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 07:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donors Capital Fund article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This content does not belong in the article with the current level of sourcing:
"Donors Capital Trust was the largest of the seven largest funders of the eight leading nonprofit organizations and think tanks in the anti-Islam movement in the US between 2001 and 2009, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. A follow-up analysis in 2015 found that Donors Capital Trust was the largest of eight funders of the ten leading anti-Islam organizations in the US between 2001 and 2012."
Use of the term "anti-Islam" is contentious and non-neutral. The sources for this content are not adequate.
These four sources--two CAP studies, an oped by the CAP authors, and a Nation piece--are not sufficient for the claims being made here. Safehaven86 ( talk) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about how this page reads. The page has very little to do with what Donors Capital Funds does as an organization but mostly covers controversies and critiques from its opposing side. This seems undue and irrelevant. We wouldn't put conservative critiques foremost on pages of progressive organizations. This page needs to be seriously reworked. DaltonCastle ( talk) 05:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
DT & DCF are not just any old funder of the climate counter-movement, they are THE LARGEST funder, clearly stated in the well-formatted, reliable source, with in-text attribution for possible concerns of bias by some editors as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is one of if not the most significant aspect of the notability of DT & DCF. To summarize the source as "a funder" seriously diminishes the notability of the subject and is a gross violation of NPOV. Hugh ( talk) 05:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think there was some confusion there. I am saying this article currently reads like a progressive watchdog release, which is biased. And this absolutely is WP:UNDUE. DaltonCastle ( talk) 05:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I did not mean to come across as rude there if that's what it seemed like. What I'm saying is that we can't give this kind of coverage on far-right pages and not on pages relating to the idealogical opposite. Realistically, this kind of coverage can be added onto every political organization page with some bias. DaltonCastle ( talk) 06:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the "leftist/progressive watchdog" angle. This article was thoroughly combed over by editors on both sides of the political spectrum in February, and if anything it seems pretty sterile to me. Dalton, where is this criticism you're referring to? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 07:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)