Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)/Archive 5

2330:"What else does it prove? Nothing." I don't agree that the proposed content is so devoid of information as to be useless to our readers. The subject of this article has his own foundation. He could give to a grantee directly, and we would never know about it, but it might cause problems for the grantee, which needs a wide base of support to show it is a public charity, as opposed to a private foundation, in order to maintain the deductibility of donations, which is an important development tool. Donors Trust and other donor advised funds leverage IRS rulings that as a sort of pool of donors, a grant from a donor advised fund to a charity does not jeopardize its status, even if the original source of the cash is an individual. He could give through his foundation, but that would leave breadcrumbs in the foundation's mandated disclosures. Also, intermediating a grant through Donors Trust rather than his own foundation has advantageous tax treatment as Donors Trust is itself a charity as opposed to a foundation; he can deduct more and offset his considerable income. I agree we don't know from RS the magnitude of his largess to Donors Trust or the identities of the ultimate beneficiaries, let alone their political activity. Yet the key notability of Donors Trust is its ability to intermediate large donations anonymously. Hospitals and schools, sure, but another key aspect of the notability of Donors Trust is the copious RS on its predilection for organizations that are pushing the envelope of political activity by charities. Noting when RS is contradictory or unclear on a question is something we do on WP when necessary. This article includes highly noteworthy sections on both his philanthropy and political activity. In part the proposed content serves our readers, who take the time to understand Donors Trust a bit, to inform them that we do not have a complete accounting of the subject of this article's philanthropic and/or political activities, that we probably never will, and that it is by his choice/design. 2616:

this information in the article under the political activity section does not make a statement about Donors Trust. This makes a statement about Paul Singer. You do not have a reliable source to verify this statement about Singer. You have not tried to provide such a source. You have focused on filling this conversation with irrelevant and useless information. Malformed analogies.. Your KKK analogy is malformed. It borders closely to being an association fallacy. I don't know that you could actually call it an association fallacy as it isn't competently written. Are you going to insert Nazi's in the conversation next? DT does have the option for donors to donate to nonpolitical causes. Again this has been verified. Donors Trust is a Donor Advised Fund. Paul Singer the account holder decides which organization that the funds he gives to Donors trust will go to. Paul Singer could possibly give it all to conservative political organizations. But this is speculation, because we don't know. Knowledge is not a

2162:

use their service. There isn't a prohibition on the use of self published sources, only a set criteria on how and when they can be used. But this is all of course meaningless. If you do not like Philanthropic choose another damn word that fits. The greater point here that you are missing and you in no way cover is simply that this in no way shows any information that is relevant to Singer's political activities. While yes Donor's Trust is involved in funding political activities, there is the more and obvious, striking, glaring, and in your face fact that they also fund non-political activities. The source being discussed shows that Singer has an account with Donors trust. It does not show that he likes to wear pink socks with red shoes, it does not show that he prefers star shaped sun glasses, it doesn't show that he drinks Dr Pepper, and it does not show any information that is relevant to his political activity. As a person with a jewish background he could support

625:

this implication. To answer the blind question, is it acceptable in the article, it is acceptable in the article, however I wouldn't see it as acceptable if you were to put it in the political activity section. Perhaps it would be acceptable in the philanthropic section. The donors trust is considered is a philanthropic charity it seems. This reference should not be used in any way to suggest anything other than what the source says, specifically that he gives them money. We have no clue where his money is going there. It could only be going to "Foundation for Jewish Camp". We have no clue. We aren't trying to politicize his financial contributions in regards to Gay rights and there's more information there. He donates to the Donor trust, be careful how this is used.

1456:- How exactly is it relevant to his politics? It's trivial, equivalent to being on a mailing list of a PAC. There is no information that he's ever used the account or that he himself even registered the account or is aware of it (one of his gazillions accountants could have registered it). And AGAIN, Donors Trust is not illegal, it's not a hate group, it's not particularly notable. There is nothing particularly interesting about a person being associated with it. Until there is some kind of relevant attached information (eg actual donations—like the other donations listed) then the fact that he has an account with Donors Trust definitely does not belong in WP:BLP. As pointed out, WP is not a compilation of every possible sourced factoid you can find about someone. 3013:

that people get membership to do something related to hate. The ACLU is ect and the primary purpose of a membership is ect. The Donors Trust is a donor advised fund. It is a charity that administers charitable donations on behalf of an individual, group or ect. It's only stated purpose is to insure that it won't go to liberal causes. They have available the option for the donors to direct their fund to some conservative causes and some non-political causes. If you would like to suggest that Singer directs his donations to conservative causes all you have to do is provide a reliable source for this. The ball is in and has long been in your court. Provide the source. If not then drop the stick. There's need for any more nonsensical and convoluted arguments.

2442:

nothing. Beyond their own website, another important source for Donors Trust's status is the US IRS, which considers Donors Trust a 501(c)(3) public charity: as a condition of the tax deductibility of donations, while they are not strictly prohibited from any involvement in politics, politics cannot be their main mission, they are expected to be nonpartisan, and they cannot endorse or material participate in political campaigns. Though, again, Donors Trust is notable for funding orgs that noodle up to those limitations. Also I agree you suggest a more accurate improvement to the brief description here (as well as the lede of Donors Trust), but I'm not sure our readers would say we are doing them a favor,

419:. There's no inherent notability in "holding an account." The source doesn't say that means that he made a donation to the group. We don't need this in the article to establish Singer's political activity or donations. There are plenty of sources here pointing to his affiliations, donations, political views and activities, etc., in meaningful and robust ways. The fact that he "holds an account" at a donor advised fund does not seem particularly notable. What does it mean to hold an account? Does that mean he gave a donations? How much? When? To what? If the original source had found these questions to be notable or interesting, perhaps they would have included that information in their reporting. 440:(that publication is noteworthy!), and American flag lapel pins (American flags are noteworthy!). Do you get my point here? As said above, just because two things are noteworthy and intersect does not make that fact RELEVANT. Donors Trust is not a criminal organization and having an account there is not illegal. We know he's mostly conservative and he's a significant donor; Donors Trust is for conservative donors; tells us nothing. It seems to me that some people are obsessed with this idea likely because they think Donors Trust is shady (I'm guessing based on my two minutes of research into the group, am I right?) and they are eager to see people associated with the group smeared somehow. 2241:? Now notability criteria? It's simple, the source, what does it prove? That he has a membership. What else does it prove? Nothing. He may very well use DT to fund conservative causes. This is unknown. Your source does not show this. I'm not going to prove a negative or a position that is not my own. It is not my position that he does not use DT to channel money to conservative political causes. It is my position that the sources provided here do not show that he does. It's unknown currently. Provide a source that shows he does. Your misapplication of notability criteria does nothing for your case. Quit trying to make a false dichotomy here. Also, quit pinging me. 2388:, Stop pinging me. WP:NNC does not support you and you do not understand the principles of due weight. WP:NNC posits that notability criteria applies to the creation and retention of an article and that it does not apply to the content of an article. To explain this to you, To write an article about Robert Singer and keep it from being deleted, Singer would have to be notable. This is not the content of the article but the subject of the article that has to be notable. In short and simple terms, Notability criteria does not apply here unless you are suggesting that Singer is not notable. It does not matter if DT is notable for donating to conservative causes. 2166:. The Donors Trust, like Paul Singer, support the New York City Police Foundation, and so he could now use the Donors Trust to donate to them. He could support the Boycott's thru them, Juilliard School, Arts institute of Chicago, St Judes Research hospital, or The New York historical society. We don't know. Your source only mentions that he has a donor's trust account. While it could be political, it could be completely and absolutely political, we have no clue because the source doesn't cover this. This is not viable for the political activity subsection because it doesn't show any actual political activity. 2461:

quit trying to lead the readers to a conclusion. Ok IRS, so then it seems fine to post it in the philanthropy. Yes that is long winded, but it is accurate and impartial, and it doesn't attempt to lead the reader to any unsourced notion about Singer. The Donors Trust is not a conservative donor advised fund, but instead it's a nonprofit donor advised fund for conservatives. While it is for conservatives, it doesn't exclusively support conservative nonprofit charities. It specifically doesn't support liberal causes. Something along the lines of

379:. Another requirement for inclusion is relevance. CPI thinks it important in their article on Donors Trust (not on Singer), and NBC thought the entire CPI article was worthy of inclusion, which does not imply that specific sections would have been included if they had edited the article. I'm not sure we should trust CPI's opinion as to what is relevant; after all, legitimate newspaper articles on living persons include information which we would not include. For example, we don't include "favorite color" (except, perhaps, for an 1969:"mentions...all the comments were in passing" Thank you for your expressed commitment to discussion based on policy and guideline. Your characterizations of the source are personal judgements without basis in policy or guideline. Mention in a highly noteworthy reliable source is exactly what noteworthiness looks like. Not every sentence in Knowledge article space need be a summary. We don't need to find a hundred words in a noteworthy reliable source before we can put one sentence in WP, we just need to find that one sentence. 2530:

exercises. You're saying that he uses a treadmill. You have no evidence, no source, nothing to make this claim. While I am sorry that the McDonalds analogy was not written delicately enough for you to understand, but is still holds. Your argument is again that because he uses a certain company he must use a specific product, ignoring that they have other products that he can use instead. This is all based on your intuition and not any evidence. It's original research. What you are trying to promote is original research.

2981:

a "Position on Civil Liberties" section, it would be entirely apt to mention membership in the ACLU even if we didn't know exactly what he was doing with his membership. The ACLU if chiefly notable as an organization that tackles civil liberty issues. DT is chiefly notable as an organization that funds political advocacy. You can't point to the ACLU's website, note that they arrange bake sales, and say "Oh. Maybe Singer is a ACLU member b/c he likes bake sales". That's simply an unreasonable inference.

2522:

a source that says that DT funds political causes. We are not talking about DT. We are talking about Singer. Dt does fund political causes. They also fund nonpolitical causes. DT's website shows this. You don't like that DT website shows this. It is actually irrelevant if you like that or not. While under your personal policy you do not find this to be acceptable, It is acceptable under wikipedia policy. Your policy is not applicable here, wikipedia policy is. The policy is

31: 2484:

To go back to the gym analogy, you seem be arguing that since a reference doesn't explicitly say someone is using a gym for exercise, we can't know having a gym membership is relevant to someone's exercise routine. That's a weird "double think" argument. If we have a source saying he has a gym membership, and lots of sources saying gyms are for excercise, isn't it just a reasonable assumption to assume gym memberships are linked to exercise?

2083:" - I'm sorry, but did you ready any sources on this entity before making this comment. No body refers to it as a "philanthropic charity", everybody refers to it as a group support conservative political activities. The fact that its 501c status makes it "technically a charity" is moot. WP works by characterizing things/people as majority of reliable sources characterize them. It doesn't matter what a thing's "technical" status is. 2233:

something. You suggest that it is political, the onus is on you to prove it is political. Your source here does not prove this. It only proves membership. Selectively cherry picking wikipedia policy, misapplying wikipedia policy, and ignoring the principles of wikipedia policy do not make for much of an argument. This is what you are doing. Hell you even call out policy that doesn't apply.

1528:

then yes, that would be relevant. They could have signed him up as a promotion for all we know. We have NO information about how much money he has donated or where it has gone. I'm sure there are donor-advised funds for liberal causes too; please find me a Knowledge BLP that mentions someone "has an account" with one of them and I will be happy to go delete that line. As has been explained

3241:, Can you show that Singer having a Donor's Trust Account, "will alter people's voting behavior"? Do you know of an election, Political Action Committee, or the like that his money that he has given to DT has went to? The sources under discussion do not show this information. There is no evidence that here taht Singers patronage of Donor's Trust will alter people's voting behavior. 1815:" - Nice parallel, but again I'm going to have to call straw man here. Virtually any type of person can have an account with Charles Schwabb. Only one type of person has money with an entity whose purpose is getting money from rich people to donate to conservative causes. That one type of person is conservatives. Being conservative is relevant to "Politics" subsection on a BLP. 688:. I'm not suggesting that the source isn't reliable, just that it isn't reliable for the information that is being proposed by this RFC. Your RSN by the way "litigated" the source in relation to the DT article not on the basis of BLP criteria. Criteria that would be important to follow with the subject of a BLP such as Paul Singer. Seems like a damn good reason to me. 559:. Since we can do that in this case, I don't see the argument not to include. Yes, it's only mentioned in passing; but it's mentioned clearly enough to use as a source, and given that touches on part of Singer's core notability I don't see how its inclusion here (in passing, with similar weight to in the source) could possibly be considered indiscriminate. -- 500:. On doing a Google search for "Paul SInger" and "Donors Trust", I did come upon mentions, but none by what we would term a reliable source, and all the comments were in passing, and essentially about Donors Trust rather than Paul Singer. It appears to be a verifiable fact, but no reliable source has commented upon it in relation to Paul Singer. At this point 2316:) It is a somewhat weak example of a 3rd party, non-SPS source in that it relies on an interview with Donors Trust's founder/president/board chair. I think Donors Trusts location on the political spectrum might be best described as "non-liberal," or "neutral to conservative," in that they explicitly state they will not work with "liberal" causes. 2270:

DT, so he must be a neoconservative". There's a difference between saying that "someone is going to a gym, so they are probably exercising" and "someone is going to a gym, so they are probably using a treadmill". One of those comments is fair and reasonable. Singer has an account at DT, and that's probably relevant to his political behavior.

2058:

says that he donates money this group. This argument is bunk. If the consensus is that this should be in the article the position that it is relevant to his political activities should be given no credence. It should not be reflected in the consensus that this is relevant to his political activities because this position is completely bunk.

466:. This is obviously not a neutral editorial agenda and the source is not even reliable, especially for potentially contentious material about a living person. These types of advocacy sources tend to promote themselves as impartial journalists, but in actuality spin and mis-represent information to support whatever their editorial agenda is. 2392:

political causes. You are applying undue weight to his status as an account holder to say that he undertakes an activity that isn't supported by the sources provided. Just because he eats a McDoanlds doesn't mean he eats a Big Mac. With Chicken McNuggets on the menu its better not to speculate. You can not verify the Big Mac here.

3207:

examples it would fall into. This tactic is faulty. There are no hard and fast rules at wikipedia. Not every possible example of indiscrimination is provided. You're trying to argue the letter of policy, but in application of wikipedia policies its well known that the actual spirit of the policy is more important than the letter.

2911:

attribution it seems. They provide the source they plan on using. Your argument isn't that the source is unreliable. Privacy per BLP? Could you link the portion of the policy that you are referring to? The rest of it's a bit of a rant that doesn't have an application to this conversation. Strive for coherence. I mean you linked

538:. This relies for its significance on implication. What does Singer do with Donor's Trust? How does he use his account? We don't know. We only know he "has an account". No source is fleshing out that piece of information. It is fragmentary in the context of an article that is trying to report responsibly on the man. 2980:

re "being an association fallacy" - Listen, if you don't like the KKK example point to any other group which is notable for one thing. Say he was a member of the of the ACLU. I'm sure there are people who hold membership in the ACLU for reasons other than supporting civil liberties. But if Singer had

2688:

because the source doesn't support that statement. Singer is a conservative who donates to a charity believed to pass money to a vast network of yada yada yada. And? Is there not a better source than passing mention in a Koch-funded charity article? Paul Singer donates to many different charities

2269:

re "A source saying that an individual has a gym membership doesn't prove that an individual uses a treadmill." - Good work carrying the analogy. But a treadmill is a particular type of exercise in the same way neoconservatism is a particular type of politics. We are not saying "Singer is a member at

2057:

But you have to consider the language being used in the RFC. The background summary argument, "The information is relevant to Singer's political activities." It's not. This provides no relevant information to his political activities. It doesn't even suggest that he doesn't support liberal causes. It

1725:

is not conservative? You want to get lawyerly and settle on non-liberal? How about non-liberal, I think that would be mean to our readers, but that would be an improvement to you? The article says "Donors Trust assures clients that their contributions will never be used to support liberal causes" and

462:

Information that is briefly mentioned in passing, or in a long list, generally falls under being an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, the source is not clear as to whether it meant those listed were donors AND, or, OR members. Finally, although it's on NBC News, it appears to be written

3012:

I don't like your KKK example because not only is it bad it's nonsensical. If you would like to switch it to the ACLU then by all means do, however it's still bad and nonsensical. The only difference now is it doesn't seem like you are trying to insert bias. The KKK is a hate group. It's very likely

2521:

I seem be focusing on one source because I am. If you brought 50 sources that said, "DT funds political causes", I would point out to you that are all completely irrelevant to the discussion and then I would ignore them and continue focusing on the one source available. It doesn't matter if you have

2402:

What does it prove besides he is an account holder? Nothing this the correct answer. He could be this, he could be that, he could wear blue socks today. This is all speculation. We do not know. It's not devoid of information it provides information. It provides information, information that he is an

2391:

WP:DUE does tell us to present information "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This article is about Singer, the source says Singer has an account with DT, The source does not say that Singer has an account with DT that he uses to fund conservative

2097:

Well yes I did. One source in particularly, the Donors Trust. However if you don't like the word then change the damn thing to charity. Not all of the donor's trust activities are political, and we do not know where singers money in the Donor's trust went as far as can tell. None of it may have went

1560:

No public tax records would be the opposite of a compelling source. Secondary sources are the primary basis for building an article. A profile story where this BLP is the subject of the article, which includes it, would most likely suffice. In a case like that, we would defer to the judgement of the

1280:

A "mention in passing" in a noteworthy, reliable source is a mention in a noteworthy, reliable source. The proposed content is not drawn from a list, it is in the text of the body of the source. (In any case FYI lists and graphics in reliable sources are reliable sources.) The source of the proposed

924:

you should explain briefly why this is even a question in your RFC. If there are editors suggesting the text should not be included, you should explain why in the RFC so that people being called by the bot can quickly review what their issues are. As it is, the text should be offered to researchers,

647:

The reliability of the source is questionable when it comes to the proposed content. This is the original version of the source. On the version chosen for use here some of the information in the original is missing. Reviewing both it seems that Paul Singer doesn't have an account with Donor's Trust,

576:

I cann't see how this is "noteworthy." The wealthy generally donate to countless political campaigns and organizations, so to make an attempt to include a single group he holds an account with is absurd. If we go down this road we will need to include all of the organizations he has donated to and I

517:

article with the same weight and context as the original reliable source, that he, along with some others, has a Donors Trust account. (I note that the information is included in that article, but tagged as questionable.) For this article we have very little reliable information and no details other

128:

which is clear that contentious material about living persons must have both have the highest quality sources, and must be important to our article. That 22 editors are are arguing about this makes it clear that this is contentious; a passing mention in a source not primarily about the person is not

2919:

and the other policies related to what is noteworthy. Apply those policies instead of applying blue links to the page. You just don't like it and that's fine. You don't have to. There is no requirement that you like things on wikipedia. Instead of telling me you don't like it, go ahead apply policy

2881:

I wouldn't state it as fact in Wiki voice. As I said earlier, inline citation with in-text attribution...so and so included Singer on a list with other conservatives as having an account with Donors Trust. But again, so what? Who cares? While mention of his views is appropriate, we don't need to

2483:

re "The source does not say that Singer has an account with DT that he uses to fund conservative political causes." - Again, you seem to be focusing on a single source. There are lots of sources available saying that DT funds political causes. No 3rd party sources which say it funds something else.

2460:

That is more of a philosophical discussion if it conveys more or not. It's not overtly relevant to the actual discussion here. It not directly or overtly convey anything but that he has a membership. We can't use the source to say anything but. Basically we either need a better source or we need to

2363:

Would you agree to include the proposed content in the existing philanthropy section? Do I understand from your comments that you support the proposed content, in general, but you feel you cannot support the RfC without implicitly endorsing the view that contributions to Donors Trust are political?

2161:

I'm very aware of those policies. I don't see their claim of being philanthropic to be an exceptional claim. I don't see that COI would apply in any obvious manner or autobiography. I am the one who forwarded that source. I do not work for donor's trust and I have no links to donor's trust. I don't

3031:

re "They have available the option for the donors to direct their fund to some conservative causes and some non-political causes" - Again, the only reference you have the "non-political causes" is DT itself. The way you're stating it, it seems like you are applying equal weight to DT's self-stated

2910:

You would not present this as fact and I would not eat bubble gum off of the ground. Both are irrelevant. Paul Singer gives money to Donors Trust. The source validates this. Your argument based on inline citation with in text attribution? You'd have to be more specific as They plan on using intext

2752:

The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by

2615:

This again is a policy that you do not understand. You are advocating synth and trying to exclude reliable sources without a reasonable policy justification. Your synth, as with all original research is prohibited. This article is about Paul Singer. This article is not about Donors trust. Putting

3206:

It may very well be "discriminate" at the DT article (note of course that I'm not saying it is or isn't), however this again is the Paul Singer article. One detail is provide by this source about Paul Singer. No actual context is provided. Now at the end you leave it to me to pick one of the four

1946:

ARE reliable sources that discusses Paul Singer in relation to Donors Trust. The referenced source is specifically about identifying the donors and account holders of Donors Trust. Singer IS the subject of the source to the extent that Singer is one of the account holders considered noteworthy by

1869:

It's not a straw-man fallacy. Anyone can have an account with Donors Trust or Charles Schwab if they wanted to - they just have to a) want to and b) have money. As has been said, over and over and over, having an account is just not notable. Until there is confirmation he actually made a donation

1527:

As far as I know, this is not a group that has "membership" like Greenpeace, NRA, ACLU etc. It's more like a having a Charles Schwab account, except with the purpose of getting money from rich people to conservative causes. That's what donor-advised funds do. If he were on the board of directors,

624:

There's nothing relevant here to Singer's political activities. This only shows that he uses the donor's trust. This could suggest that he doesn't support any liberal causes. However this doesn't show that and if we don't have any sources to suggest that we shouldn't have this effort here to make

3008:

Touchy about pings? Not at all. I am perhaps a little touchy about having to indicate to you 3 times that I don't wish you to ping me. Well since you wish to echo Atsme, Let me direct you up to my response. There's a convenient link directly to ANI. If you feel personally attacked or that I have

2529:

To further waste my time with your analogy, Singer has a membership to a gym (donors trust). At this Gym he exercises (donates money). We do not know if he uses a treadmill (donates to conservative causes) there or use a stationary bike (donates to nonpolitical causes). You're not saying that he

2102:

has received funding from Donor's Trust. Interesting political organization there in that they aren't a political organization. Coming from a jewish family he might have donated to them. The source does not say where Singer channeled his money thru this trust. There's nothing here in to show any

2441:

Thanks for your continued engagement. "It provides information, information that he is an account holder." Thanks, we are substantially in agreement, and of course that's all the proposed content claims, but as I explained above, I think it conveys a bit more than that, although yeah it proves

2709:

and is drawn from the lede of Donors Trust's wp article, not necessarily from the refs cited here. How would you feel if the proposed content above wer amended to strike "conservative?" Thanks. In conjunction with the idea from above of adding the content to the philanthropy section? Thanks.

3053:

Pardon, Etc... The only reference I have is a reliable source by wikipedia policy. If you don't not like this policy start an RFC or take some action to get it changed. And while this reliable source is the only I provided (to repeat this for again) Hugh provided a third party source above.

2406:

I can not endorse this RFC, because I do not support this RFC. This RFC asks, "Can we put this in the political activity section because it is relevant to Singer's political activities?" The source does not support this notion. Nick CT brings up a question of whether we should consider DT a

2232:

To steal your example, Gym Membership, A source saying that an individual has a gym membership doesn't prove that an individual uses a treadmill. That's original research. Unsourced speculation. There's no reasonable basis for your position that the onus is on me to prove that he doesn't do

3035:

re "If you would like to suggest that Singer directs his donations to conservative" - I think the onus is on you to provide a source that says that Singers membership at an organization, which almost exclusively funds political groups, is being used to fund something other than political

3091:

Regarding your opinion that WP should respect the anonymity, may I ask for the basis in policy or guideline? All of investigative journalism is publishing facts that someone does not want to be made public, is it your opinion that all results of investigative journalism are prohibited?

518:

than he has an account, and even with stronger sources one would still question the relevance of inclusion. The arguments above for inclusion do not take into account that we are not the internet, we are an encyclopedia, so we select information carefully to avoid being indiscriminate.

129:

the highest quality source; and a sentence mentioning that he has an account in a conservative political fund is not that important to our article which already has a large section about his notable activity in Republican party politics. Editor consensus and policy agree, leave it out.

1870:(minimum standard for every other donation), it's not going in the article. This has nothing to do with supporting Donors Trust or conservative causes, btw. I'll delete any trivia that someone has a donor-advised account out of any article on here ... if you could possibly find one. 1177:

Thank you for your comment. Sure, but can we please bound our discussion within policy and guidelines, or must I overcome any old objection you might have? I would like to learn more about this criteria you cite of individual interest. Where can I read more about it? Thank you again.

3167:

Thank you for your comment. We agree, the proposed content is verifiable. We agree, verifiability is not everything. I will attempt to re-paraphrase the above stated reasons why this content is discriminate. Recognize the content is the result of investigative journalism. Although

2554:

You keep pushing this idea that DT does more than fund political causes. You are doing this on the basis of a single self-published source, and basically ignoring that the overwhelming number of sources stating that DT funds political activities. If you're failing to see how this

832:

Several wealthy conservatives who have attended Koch fundraising parties have Donors Trust accounts, including Amway co-founder and longtime booster of conservative causes Richard DeVos; hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer; and Philip Anschutz, owner of the conservative Examiner

333:- As nominator; the standard for inclusion is typically only that something be verifiable and not obviously in contravention with some other policy on WP. No one seems to disagree that this is tidbit is verifiable, and I haven't heard a good policy-based argument for exclusion. 2882:

dissect every nook and cranny of his personal finances. A little privacy please per BLP policy. More attention needs to focus on the format and MOS of this BLP because it leaves a lot to be desired. It reads more like a hybrid list than a BLP. See examples of GAs on BLPs:

3214:

Looking at the original print I do have to ask if Paul Singer actually has an account at all or if the Paul Singer family foundation is who has the account. Well it's actually clear that the Paul Singer Family Foundation has an account, but does Paul Singer actually have an

2843:

under the political activity section. The reason for this is because including it under the political activities section and with the word conservative makes unsubstantiated claims against Singer. Making such unsubstantiated claims detracts from the NPOV. Mentioning that

2479:

re "WP:NNC does not support you" - Perhaps you haven't read the discussion above. A number of folks are opposing inclusion on the basis that the information simply isn't notable. You've just argued that inclusion in the body of article isn't dictated by the information's

2199:

If you're really going to argue that a membership to a group whose purpose is funding political action groups, isn't inherently a political thing, I think the onus is really on you to demonstrate that Singer is using his membership for something other than its usual use.

1829:" - I sorta take your point that just "having an account" is not usually in and of itself notable. I think you gotta admit though that there is a fundamental and rather important difference between having a generic bank account and having an account at Donors Trust. 3210:

Of course I'm just pointing out that your argument does nothing to show this is not indisciminate. However I just noted that this is a reprint of a CPI story and not an NBC story. I notice in the original printing more information is provided. Graphs and such.

2224:

Most of the rest of what you have to say is largely irrelevant. DT may be notable for its donation to conservative political causes but again this is irrelevant. While they may not be notable for donating to non political causes like Julliard, they still do.

2187:- Sure DT may also fund "non-political activities". That doesn't change the fact that they are solely notable for funding political activities. Can you find a single RS covering DT's funding of a non-political activity (other than a self published source)? 463:

by The Center for Public Integrity. Its editorial mission appears to be "To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism."

3066:

Even with your original research your case fails to meet this simple standard. Btw, I'm not posting your comments and appending your signature to them. Your not the first editor to post nonsensical and convoluted arguments. No need to try to pass the

963:. The article is about Donors Trust, not about Singer. Singer is mentioned only in passing - he doesn't even get his own sentence. The article also doesn't say how much he donated to it, or whether he even donated anything at all. This feels like 2505:

again is this policy. What is the relevance of, "A number of folks are opposing inclusion on the basis that the information simply isn't notable."? So what if they do? How is that relevent to this discussion? Notability guidelines do not apply,

2526:. However just to go ahead and state the obvious, Hugh has linked a 3rd party source that shows that DT supports nonpolitical causes. Two reliable sources. One a self published source and the other a 3rd party source.You shouldn't do analogies. 1930:"none by what we would term a reliable source...Without a reliable source discussing Paul Singer in relation to Donors Trust, it would be inappropriate to use that information in the Paul Singer article." The reliability of referenced sources 512:

come into consideration. Without a reliable source discussing Paul Singer in relation to Donors Trust, it would be inappropriate to use that information in the Paul Singer article. However, it would be acceptable to use the information in the

2276:

tells us that we should present information "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You seem to be holding a single self published source over all the third party RS that exists. Clearly UNDUE.

1891:

Sorry to inform, it's not up to you, this is not an area where personal preferences or personal interests come into play. There's really no need for us to argue about whether or not this is notable. An extremely noteworthy, reliable source,

1416:

If anyone brings forth a really compelling source, I would be open to changing my mind. However, doing a quick Google search, all that came up were similar sources with brief mentions and advocacy sources, Sourcewatch and similar riff-raff.

123:

Counting hands, we have seven editors supporting and fifteen opposing inclusion. More important, however, are the arguments made and our relevant policies, such as the argument made by SilkTork and others that this is a passing mention, and

2679:

which is the topic of this RfC. I didn't quite understand the relevance of such an insignificant passing mention or what the inclusion of such a statement attempts to relay to the reader. Another statement in the cited source suggests:

1080:

thought they were being clear to their readers. Does context offer you and our readers any clues, a fund with minimum deposit requirements for clients? Any attempt toward consensus here by elaborating to clarify you will rebuff as SYNTH?

919:

We want to have as much relevant information provided to researches as possible, and the proposed test is highly relevant and informative. There is no good reason not to include the information, and it is too informative to not include.

2689:

so is the plan to list all the charities to which he donates in this BLP or just the ones believed to have a political slant? If the latter, we get into BALANCE, UNDUE and NPOV issues. Hope that explanation helps. Happy editing!

1745:. Was that your intention? And no, I don't plan to "re-litigate" anything here. My point is that it's a bit hard to take arguments seriously when sources are being misrepresented. When someone says a source says something, and then 555:. His notability stems in part from his status as a '...investor, philanthropist, and political activist'; this would make his donations (and the way he makes them) seem obviously relevant to me as long as we can cite them to a 3172:

does not divulge its account holders, contributions to the fund may be included in the IRS filings of the donors themselves. The investigative journalists poured over many, many federal disclosures. Of all the contributors to

1846:" - I take your point that primary sources aren't ideal, but you are casting doubt on the secondary source. I'm saying since we can verify that secondary source with a solid primary source, why would you doubt the secondary? 1506:" - Neither is Green Peace. But if Gore belonged to Green Peace, it still might be worth mentioning it under his "Environmentalism" section. It's relevant and verifiable, and that's all that matters at the end of the day. 774:- it is irrelevant. Unless the source specifically states the amount of his financial contribution and exactly what it is used for, it is SYNTH. X pays into Y. Y pays into Z therefore X pays into Z?? Nope - SYNTH 387:

comes to mind. I haven't checked the specific guidelines recently, but the general rule is that, for something to be listed, it should be of interest to readers. Ideally, it should have sufficient context to indicate

1702:

That doesn't come remotely close to saying the group's "purpose it to support conservative political advocacy groups." You're taking generous poetic license. It doesn't say "conservative," "political," or "advocacy."

1159:

at this point, once something has been removed, the impetus is on you to to prove why it is relevant and belongs rather than the other way around. That you think it's interesting does not mean it is to other people.

3185:

source, nor the proposed content here, is an indiscriminate list of all donors, or of all donors they found. In short, the proposed content is discriminate for Knowledge for the same reason it was discriminate for

2562:

If the KKK put on their website, "We fund animal hospitals", you would essentially argue that we couldn't know KKK membership was relevant to someone's position on race, because they may just be in the KKK to help

713:

The point of Donor's Trust is that it cloaks how much money is being used for what, and it explicitly says it will only be used to support conservative causes, which is deeply relevant to his political activities.

1662:

I don't think this is really the appropriate place to be discussing other content issues. You can start a new discussion topic with its own subheading, but this area is reserved for discussion of the ongoing RFC.

3194:

lists 4 sub-cases, it might help me understand your issue if you could please identify which sub-case you feel is most applicable here toward demonstrating the proposed content is indiscriminant. Thanks again.

2856:

is different. These claims have been substantiated. It wouldn't meaningfully affect the balance of the article included in the philanthropy section. If you wanted to exclude that you'd need another basis than

2041:

is technically a public charity and the ultimate recipients are required to be public charities, so this content is more appropriate under the existing "Philanthropy" section. Thank you for your response.

1319:

No one is mis-representing anything. All the source says is that Singer holds a Donors Trust account, and all the proposed content says is that Singer holds a Donors Trust account. This one is easy, guys.

1900:

is very clear, coverage in WP is proportional to reliable source. Leaving this fact out is only proportional to it not being in RS. Inclusion is forced by policy. We are obligated to fairly summarize RS.

2266:

Notability criteria does not apply to content within an article." - I'm confused. This seems to support my point. Remember, the folks here are arguing to exclude b/c they don't feel this fact is notable.

991:

to current discussion. The proposed content is discriminant; it discriminates between all Donors Trust account holders, and the Donors Trust account holders identified as of interest to their readers by

2190:

You're basically arguing that someone with a gym membership might not be using their membership for exercising; hence, mentioning gym membership under "Exercise habits" in a BLP, would be inappropriate.

1580:. Singer IS the subject of the source to the extent that the source is an investigation of the donors and account holders of Donors Trust. Singer is one of the account holders considered noteworthy by 1402:" - Maybe. But the fact remains that the particular sentence we're inserting can be backed by other sources. This RfC isn't about the reference. That's been discussed and determined to be reliable. 1072:"Account" is an English word, and the source is in English, and the proposed content is in English. Are you confused about what an account is, or are you worried someone else might be? The sources 2196:

Gyms are notable as places of exercise. They are not notable for other activities. DT is notable as a place that funds conservative political action groups. It is not notable for other activities.

942:

Yes it is relevant. People who look for information on this politician should know that he's part of an anti-American corporate agenda, and not providing such information leans toward violating

2012:" - That comment confuses me. Have the seen the NBC article the factoid was initially cited to? Few people seem to be debating the availability of a reliable source to verify this thing. re " 1137:

mention interesting to editors? All I find is proportion to reliable sources. May I respectfully remind participants that their reasons for their position is more important than their vote.

1644:

Singer sponsors the University of Rochester Singer Prize for Excellence in Secondary Teaching, the Harlem Children's Zone, the Success Charter Network, and the Police Athletic League NYC.

2140:? Using Donors Trust as a source about Donors Trust is really bad practice, and advised against by any number of WP policies. Generally on WP we try to find neutral 3rd party sources. 2705:

Thanks for your reply. That is helpful. Yes, the term "conservative" is part of a brief definition of a new term, Donors Trust, on first mention in this article, in conformance with

2587:

I'm pushing no ideas. I am pointing out the verifiable fact that DT does fund more than political causes. I have provided a source for verification that meets wikipedia standards.

3114:

after an investigation of hundreds of contributions in many federal disclosure documents. This is exactly what "discriminate" looks like. The source of the proposed content is

1499:" - Is that a serious question? Donors Trust's stated purpose is to support conservate political advocacy groups. How is being involved with them not relevant to your politics? 1289:

after an investigation of hundreds of contributions in many federal disclosure documents. This is exactly what "discriminate" looks like. The proposed content was published by

598:. But the businessman Paul Singer, the subject of this Knowledge entry, has been involved in a major economic and political issue, and in the most notable manner possible. The 2214:

I see your insistence that I find more than a self published source for the non-political groups that they donate to but this is not actually reflected in Knowledge policy.

1266:

reviewed federal filings with hundreds of charitable contributions and identified a few as worthy of bringing to the attention of their readers. Why else did they do that?

2551:- re "Notability guidelines do not dictate the content of the article" - Right. So whether we feel the information is notable or not, it can go into the body of a article. 594:

Typically, this kind of information is not appropriate for inclusion, on account of a number of Knowledge rules and guidelines, especially those protecting the privacy of

436:. Summoned by bot. I don't see why it is "noteworthy" in any way. He probably also has an account with Netflix (Netflix is a noteworthy company!), a subscription to the 3118:, a highly reliable, highly noteworthy source; sufficiently noteworthy that multiple references are not necessary for inclusion. The proposed content was published by 2682:

Conservative foundations and individuals use Donors Trust to pass money to a vast network of think tanks and media outlets that push free-market ideology in the states

857: 2501:

The majority of what you have to say is irrelevant. Yes I said Notability guidelines do not dictate the content of the article. I also linked the policy said this.

662:

This has been covered in this thread already, but once more: the reliability of the source is not at issue here. The reliablity of the soruce has been litigated at

178: 168: 1060:"an account"? Why should I care? And, if you add a reason (from a different source), why does the explanation of what an account is not constitute synthesis. — 946:

if the issue to not include is politically motivated. The information is real, valid, legitimate and will alter people's voting behavior so it should be included.

2193:

Sure. You might be right. I'm sure there is someone out there who has a gym membership and isn't using it for exercising. But that's clearly fallacious reasoning.

3149:, you don't make a case that this is not indiscriminate. You make a case that it is verifiable. Verifiability does not suggest that something is "discriminate". 204:

There has been an extended debate regarding the appropriateness of including the line above in this article. Former conversations on this topic can be found at:

879:. Not clear what having an account is supposed to mean; surely not WEIGHT-y to take this datapoint and place it into a BLP. Agree with SilkTork, among others. 2977:

You seem to be a little touchy about a lot of stuff. I think I'd echo Atsme's comments in asking that you try to focus on the argument rather than the arguer.

2652:

Thanks for your response. The proposed content at the head of this thread seems to me a very straightforward paraphrase of the source. One source. How is it

1623:, could you point me to where on the Donors Trust website it says that "Donors Trust's stated purpose is to support conservative political advocacy groups"? 2144: 2684:

which also doesn't support the RfC topic statement, "conservative donor advised fund", so SYNTH must be used to draw the conclusion that Donors Trust is

1111:

Thanks for sharing that you don't think it's interesting. It does strike me as interesting. Also, and perhaps more relevant, noteworthy reliable sources

2414:

5 questions. To me all of the questions suggest that we can reliably consider DT philanthropic. I'm not opposed to putting, "Singer has an account with

2487:

Your McDonalds analogy doesn't hold, b/c McDonalds is notable for serving much more than big Macs. DT is only notable for funding political efforts.

2410:

this self published source.The question would be if we give weight to the position that they are. The way to answer this question would be to follow

1030:

That would be synthesis, if NBC says Singer holds an account, and some other source says what "holding an account" means, we cannot combine them. —

1435:? New York Times? Washington Post? And may I ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for this personally compelling source criteria? Thanks. 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1602:

A BLP source need not be a profile. Most of the content of this article is drawn from sources which are not specifically profiles of the subject.

509: 3190:. No offense, but to me frankly this is pretty straightforward. If it is not to you, please ask for further clarification and I will try again. 209: 193: 2037:

Yes, of course, be careful how this is used; the proposed content at the head of this thread makes no claims beyond what you suggest. Yes,

400:

might be of interest, although probably not, unless it is a significant part of his total donations, or a significant part of donations to

1378:

membership under Gore's "Environmentalism" subsection, would I be smearing him? It's simply a factoid relevant to Gore's Environmentalism.

3270: 3212: 1042:

No one is combining anything. Again, all the proposed content says is what the ONE source says. It is plain English. It is noteworthy.

685: 2815:. There are parallels. Call it what you will, but having Singer's name in a list in an article about Koch is hardly noteworthy. 2446:

is kind of a mouthful, and I think many readers and fellow editors upon seeing it and will wonder WTF, you mean conservative?

1483:

Would Singer's public record tax filings be a "compelling source"? Did see my comments above regarding Singer's PF 990 filing?

1099:

doesn't strike me as interesting, nor would a statement that Obama donated (personal funds) to a similar liberal charity. —

648:

Paul Singers Family foundation does. The source does not support the information being proposed for inclusion in the article.

501: 497: 205: 106: 47: 17: 3259:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1782: 1754: 1708: 1668: 1628: 1003:

Re: what "holds an account" means. All the proposed content says is what the source says. It is plain English. Content at

424: 354:

is noteworthy. The relationship between Paul Singer and Donors Trust is noteworthy. Neutral, verifiable, reliable sources

2810:...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still 1363:" - Straw man argument. Having a Netflix account isn't relevant to your politics. Having an account with Donors Trust is. 856:

public available knowledge; as it is not, we should not advance it here. Do a search on "Donor Trust" and "Paul Singer",

1983:"On doing a Google search..." This technique of using Google search results to settle weight issues is not mentioned in 3111: 1952: 1943: 1935: 1585: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1263: 1116: 1077: 997: 867: 670: 359: 186: 2800:

do not apply to article content, there is mention that explains how content coverage (noteworthiness) is governed by

1203:. As has been said, not every single piece of sourced information is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. 2163: 2099: 1640:

Most of the content in this article has one ref. One ref, broken link. Who would support deleting this sentence?

505: 296: 38: 1133:

May I ask after the basis in policy or guideline for this criteria of striking oneself as interesting? Where does

3246: 3220: 3158: 3072: 3064:

Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source.

3018: 2974:

re "Do not ping me" - Hmmm... Little touchy about the pings, huh? Well I'm sorry. It's not meant to be harassing.

2959: 2925: 2862: 2783: 2625: 2535: 2470: 2431: 2246: 2171: 2108: 2063: 693: 653: 630: 150: 1822:" - We do actually know how much money from primary sources, and from the fact that the minimum donation is 10k. 1777:

And you didn't answer mine. I'll chalk it up to your evident frustration that your plan for this RFC backfired.

1576:

The source for the proposed content IS a secondary source, a highly reliable, very noteworthy secondary source,

681:. Vote however you like but maybe you don't want to vote one way for the wrong reason. 05:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 666: 3191: 3150: 3107: 2771: 2733: 1778: 1750: 1704: 1679: 1664: 1624: 988: 972: 884: 845: 420: 384: 2422:

I don't consider that this leads to an impartial tone. This could be amended to something along the lines of,

2298: 606:

to include any and all significant information related to the subject's political ideology and affiliations. -

292: 262: 3110:

you feel applies here? The proposed content is not "indiscriminate." The proposed content was published by

2016:" - That's sorta a shenenigans argument. Lots of information goes into BLPs with weaker sourcing than this. 1742: 1011:

may help clarify the meaning for those who might be unsure, from which we could perhaps lift a few words to

951: 798: 719: 279: 3126:

thought the proposed content was important to their readers. This is exactly what "due weight" looks like.

2518:

which are the notability guidelines. They explain everything in a very clear and easy to understand manner.

2291:

Perhaps the most spirited defense of the view that not all Donors Trust activities are political is in the

1305:

thought the proposed content was important to their readers. This is exactly what "due weight" looks like.

3086: 2675:

includes a short list of some of the donors naming Paul Singer as one. It doesn't categorize the fund as

1697:

donors who are dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise

1103: 1064: 1034: 930: 863: 489: 408: 3039:

re "There's need for any more nonsensical and convoluted arguments" - Agreed. Please stop offering them.

2706: 2215: 1220:

Thank you for your commitment to dialog informed by policy and guideline. May I ask, which subsection of

968: 2617: 582: 258: 2915:

to the word noteworthy. This is not applying a policy, just applying a blue link. The policy would be

732:

Welcome! Say, your edit summary says one thing and your response says another. Please clarify. Thanks!

275: 238:

Having "an account" is ambiguous, and it's impossible to know if it's relevant to political activities

3242: 3216: 3154: 3068: 3014: 2955: 2921: 2858: 2797: 2779: 2748: 2621: 2546: 2531: 2466: 2427: 2358: 2257: 2242: 2182: 2167: 2119: 2104: 2074: 2059: 2032: 1566: 1422: 1285:, a highly reliable, highly noteworthy source if there is one. The proposed content was published by 689: 649: 626: 471: 2755:

because the article actually isn't about the BLP and only involves his name in a list. Good luck.

1119:

thought it was interesting to their readers. Not sure what this has to do with Obama. Thanks again.

3271:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/14/12181/donors-use-charity-push-free-market-policies-states

3250: 3224: 3162: 3135: 3101: 3076: 3048: 3022: 2990: 2963: 2945: 2929: 2905: 2866: 2826: 2787: 2766: 2719: 2700: 2673:

Several wealthy conservatives who have attended Koch fundraising parties have Donors Trust accounts

2665: 2629: 2608: 2575: 2539: 2523: 2511: 2507: 2496: 2474: 2455: 2435: 2373: 2339: 2325: 2286: 2250: 2218: 2209: 2175: 2156: 2112: 2092: 2067: 2051: 2025: 1996: 1978: 1964: 1910: 1882: 1855: 1786: 1772: 1758: 1712: 1672: 1655: 1632: 1611: 1597: 1570: 1544: 1515: 1468: 1444: 1426: 1411: 1343: 1329: 1314: 1297:

thought the proposed content was important to their readers. The proposed content was published by

1275: 1233: 1215: 1187: 1172: 1146: 1128: 1106: 1090: 1067: 1051: 1037: 1024: 976: 955: 934: 910: 888: 880: 871: 844:, and would more context about other political activity of the subject it appears to be fall under 821: 802: 785: 762: 741: 723: 697: 657: 634: 615: 611: 586: 568: 564: 547: 530: 481: 475: 454: 428: 411: 371: 342: 314: 300: 283: 266: 138: 896:- no inherent notability, its not clear what the imputation is, and its generally not noteworthy. 3236: 1095:

Even if "account" meant "financial account", the statement that Singer made donations to/through

1008: 947: 906: 853: 794: 748: 715: 543: 527: 162: 2741: 2604: 2411: 2408: 2238: 2137: 2129: 1100: 1061: 1031: 926: 816: 405: 380: 2426:

Except for the fact that they don't support liberal causes the organization seems apolitical.

3044: 2986: 2836: 2832: 2801: 2737: 2571: 2492: 2282: 2205: 2152: 2088: 2021: 1851: 1692: 1511: 1407: 578: 493: 392:

it should be of interest to readers. I see no explanation as to why "having an account" at

338: 134: 2920:

to your conversation and explain why this should no way be in the article based on policy.

149:

Should this article contain the following line or a similar piece of information under the

3200: 3131: 3097: 2943: 2916: 2903: 2887: 2824: 2764: 2715: 2698: 2661: 2653: 2612: 2596: 2556: 2451: 2369: 2335: 2321: 2303: 2047: 1992: 1974: 1960: 1906: 1871: 1834: 1803: 1768: 1735: 1651: 1607: 1593: 1562: 1533: 1488: 1475: 1457: 1440: 1418: 1383: 1351: 1339: 1325: 1310: 1271: 1229: 1221: 1204: 1200: 1183: 1161: 1142: 1134: 1124: 1086: 1047: 1020: 964: 841: 783: 758: 737: 485: 467: 441: 367: 318: 3181:

considered a few to be significantly noteworthy to share with their readers. Neither the

2732:

You're welcome. My recommendation would be to cite the source with in-text attribution,

2591:

Though there is no need for it, Hugh has provided a 3rd party source that verifies this.

3032:

purpose, and the purpose a dozen independent 3rd party RS's say about it. Clearly undue.

3055: 2883: 2805: 2592: 2588: 943: 607: 560: 310: 1393:

mentioned in passing, or in a long list, generally falls under being an indiscriminate

3059: 2951: 2912: 2775: 2600: 2502: 2273: 2263: 2234: 2226: 2133: 2003: 1984: 1897: 897: 849: 663: 595: 539: 520: 210:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Column_on_Donors_Trust_on_.28but_not_by.29_NBC

125: 1561:

source. If they felt it was worth including in a biography, than we should as well.

3174: 3169: 2415: 2038: 1727: 1722: 1718: 1400:

these types of advocacy sources tend to promote themselves as impartial journalists

1096: 1004: 811: 556: 514: 401: 397: 393: 351: 158: 2407:

philanthropic organization. The only source I've seen to suggest that they are is

3153:

points out that verifiability is not enough in itself for encyclopedic inclusion.

2809: 2751: 2681: 2672: 1504:

Donors Trust is not illegal, it's not a hate group, it's not particularly notable

860:, and many are from non-reliable sources. Therefore, zero weight should be given. 3040: 2982: 2950:

Atsme, if you feel the above is a personal attack, here is a convenient link to

2567: 2515: 2488: 2383: 2278: 2201: 2148: 2084: 2017: 1864: 1847: 1620: 1522: 1507: 1451: 1403: 1012: 810:

I don't see a good reason presented for excluding this. Think of the reader. -

599: 334: 130: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3196: 3144: 3127: 3093: 2935: 2895: 2816: 2756: 2711: 2690: 2657: 2647: 2447: 2397: 2365: 2331: 2317: 2043: 1988: 1970: 1956: 1902: 1764: 1731: 1647: 1603: 1589: 1436: 1375: 1335: 1321: 1306: 1267: 1225: 1194: 1179: 1154: 1138: 1120: 1082: 1043: 1016: 837: 775: 754: 733: 363: 2831:

Noteworthy may be the word you were looking for it's just not a word used by

1741:

Your use of the term "re-litigate" comes across as a bad faith accusation of

2891: 3009:

attacked anyone then by all means use that convenient link and report it.

2841:

Singer has an account with Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund.

1368:

and they are eager to see people associated with the group smeared somehow.

669:. The source was found by consensus to be reliable; the news agency is the 362:

agree the relationship between Paul Singer and Donors Trust is noteworthy.

2143:

If you do look at those 3rd party sources, you generally find terms like "

3187: 3182: 3178: 3123: 3119: 3115: 1948: 1939: 1931: 1893: 1581: 1577: 1432: 1302: 1298: 1282: 1259: 1112: 1073: 993: 678: 674: 355: 182: 2846:

Singer has an account with Donors Trust, a nonprofit donor advised fund.

464: 2217:

This stands as a reliable source to show that they donate to Julliard.

1371: 2736:. Community consensus will determine inclusion of a passage based on 1370:" - I don't see how this would count as smearing. If I mentioned that 836:

It only mentions the subject of this article in passing. As stated by

179:

Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states

3058:

While you "think" the onus is on me, it's more than clear under the

2424:

a nonprofit donor advised fund that does not support liberal causes.

2098:

to a political cause. All of it may have went to a political cause.

2812:

disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic

2444:

a nonprofit donor advised fund that does not support liberal causes

2081:

The donors trust is considered is a philanthropic charity it seems.

2010:

no reliable source has commented upon it in relation to Paul Singer

2934:

SJP, please restrict your comments to content when addressing me.

1844:

No public tax records would be the opposite of a compelling source

2778:

Notability guidelines do not apply to content with in an article.

684:

Unnamed editor, NBC is republishing this. It was first published

2671:

You are quite welcome, HughD. The passage cited in the source:

2229:

Notability criteria does not apply to content within an article.

2103:

political standing. He uses this service. This is all this says.

396:

should be of interest to readers. Making a donation to/through

2804:

and other content policies. One other such content policy is

2850:

Singer has an account with Donors Trust, a donor advised fund.

241:

The information simply isn't notable and shouldn't be included

25: 98:

Can we identify Paul Singer as a Donors Trust account holder?

226:

The information is relevant to Singer's political activities

1896:, decided for us. This is very easy, very straightforward. 925:

it is relevant and there are no reasons not to include it.

829:. Here is the relevant quote from the source in question: 3106:

Can you please be more specific about which clause under

2418:." in the philanthropy section. I don't like the tone of 196:. Source stable at target article and in other articles. 2753:

the principle of due weight and other content policies.

1532:, simply having an account somewhere is not notable. 2744:

and of course, relevance. In this situation, is it

1721:

talk page discussions of the lede here in this RfC?

105:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

115:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

830: 1224:do you feel is applicable here? Thanks again. 480:Some guidelines we have on these matters are: 3056:But I don't expect that you hear any of this. 2126:One source in particularly, the Donors Trust. 118:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 2734:Knowledge:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution 1431:Gosh, what would compel you? I mean, beyond 1361:He probably also has an account with Netflix 2559:, you're simply trying to ignore the point. 1497:How exactly is it relevant to his politics? 206:Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)#Donors_Trust 321:. Thank you in advance for your feedback! 317:. As always let's keep the conversations 250:Please format your responses as follow - 2854:Singer has an account with Donors Trust. 1749:are in the source, it's a bit baffling. 577:doubt people will find that noteworthy. 309:- This RfC should not be construed as a 3263: 2607:above. It does not apply. You misapply 1056:True, it says he has an account. What 510:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons 602:reigns supreme here. It is impossible 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3028:re "The ACLU is ect" - what is "ect"? 7: 2603:above. It does not apply. You quote 192:Source reliable as per consensus at 2297:Zeiser, Bill (September 24, 2014). 200:Background and Summary of Arguments 2620:. Get a source or drop the stick. 2599:in lieu of an argument. You quote 2420:a conservative donor advised fund. 313:rather than an attempt to measure 177:Abowd, Paul (February 14, 2013). " 24: 2686:a conservative donor advised fund 2677:a conservative donor advised fund 1763:A question is not an accusation. 1334:The proposed content is neutral. 3255:The discussion above is closed. 2147:". Not "philanthropic charity". 2014:we select information carefully 29: 2774:is an inapplicable essay here. 1717:Do you plan to re-litigate our 840:the conclusion raised would be 2514:is a shortcut to a section of 2145:secretive funding organization 1689:could you point me to where on 1015:if you feel it is necessary. 498:Knowledge:Relevance of content 18:Talk:Paul Singer (businessman) 1: 1695:. Specifically line reading " 677:. The reliability is that of 350:- Paul Singer is noteworthy. 301:20:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 284:20:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 267:20:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 223:The information is verifiable 2566:That's willful foolishness. 2463:nonprofit donor advised fund 858:less than 100 hits on google 189:. Retrieved March 10, 2015. 3112:Center for Public Integrity 3062:that the onus is on you. 2839:would keep us from saying, 1953:Center for Public Integrity 1944:Center for Public Integrity 1936:Center for Public Integrity 1586:Center for Public Integrity 1295:Center for Public Integrity 1291:Center for Public Integrity 1287:Center for Public Integrity 1264:Center for Public Integrity 1117:Center for Public Integrity 1078:Center for Public Integrity 998:Center for Public Integrity 671:Center for Public Integrity 360:Center for Public Integrity 187:Center for Public Integrity 157:Singer has an account with 3289: 3136:14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) 3102:15:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC) 3077:21:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 3049:15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 3023:15:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 2991:13:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 2964:04:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) 2946:02:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC) 2930:01:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC) 2906:23:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC) 2867:04:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC) 2827:03:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC) 2788:01:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC) 2767:00:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC) 2720:21:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2701:17:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2666:16:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2630:00:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 2576:11:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 2540:04:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 2497:02:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 2475:23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2456:22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2436:21:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2374:15:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2340:16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2326:15:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2287:11:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2251:02:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2210:01:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2176:21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 2164:Foundation for Jewish Camp 2157:14:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 2113:13:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 2100:Foundation for Jewish Camp 2093:12:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 2068:06:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 2052:06:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 2026:00:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 1997:22:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 1979:22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 1965:22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 1911:21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1883:21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1856:20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1787:16:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 1773:15:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 1759:14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 1713:01:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 1673:19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1656:19:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1633:19:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1612:19:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1598:18:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1571:18:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1545:20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1516:18:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1469:17:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1445:17:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1427:17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1412:16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1344:15:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1330:15:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1315:15:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1276:02:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 1234:15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 1216:19:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1188:18:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1173:17:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 1147:02:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 1129:23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) 1107:20:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC) 1091:19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) 1068:18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) 1052:05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC) 1038:23:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC) 1025:21:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC) 911:00:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 889:21:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC) 872:11:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC) 862:FYI came here via a RfC.-- 822:03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 803:21:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 786:07:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 763:17:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 742:22:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 724:20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 635:02:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 569:06:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC) 548:12:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 531:10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC) 476:08:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 455:00:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 429:18:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC) 412:17:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC) 372:16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC) 343:17:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 616:09:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC) 587:17:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC) 291:- Suggestion. Rationale. 230:The main arguments which 215:The main arguments which 3257:Please do not modify it. 2465:would perhaps be better. 1827:simply having an account 977:14:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC) 698:06:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 658:01:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 139:15:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 112:Please do not modify it. 3251:18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC) 3225:23:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 3163:14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 956:16:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) 935:15:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC) 673:, and the publisher is 502:WP:No original research 307:Standard RfC Disclaimer 2128:" - Are familiar with 1646: 835: 490:Knowledge:Out of scope 2798:notability guidelines 1642: 1395:" - Reference please? 987:Re: applicability of 852:is the donor list of 289:Alternative Sugestion 42:of past discussions. 2597:policy alphabet soup 2593:You don't hear that. 2589:You don't hear that. 1726:it's been stable by 2796:. Btw, even though 1779:Champaign Supernova 1751:Champaign Supernova 1747:none of those words 1705:Champaign Supernova 1680:Champaign Supernova 1665:Champaign Supernova 1625:Champaign Supernova 983:Threaded Discussion 622:Alternative opinion 506:WP:Reliable sources 482:Knowledge:Relevance 438:Wall Street Journal 421:Champaign Supernova 293:IThinkOutsideTheBox 246:Format of Responses 107:request for comment 2595:You keep spouting 1009:donor advised fund 163:donor advised fund 151:Political Activity 3243:-Serialjoepsycho- 3217:-Serialjoepsycho- 3192:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 3155:-Serialjoepsycho- 3151:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 3108:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 3087:RightCowLeftCoast 3069:-Serialjoepsycho- 3015:-Serialjoepsycho- 2956:-Serialjoepsycho- 2922:-Serialjoepsycho- 2859:-Serialjoepsycho- 2780:-Serialjoepsycho- 2772:WP:TRIVIALMENTION 2622:-Serialjoepsycho- 2532:-Serialjoepsycho- 2467:-Serialjoepsycho- 2428:-Serialjoepsycho- 2403:account holder. 2243:-Serialjoepsycho- 2168:-Serialjoepsycho- 2105:-Serialjoepsycho- 2060:-Serialjoepsycho- 1938:is not at issue. 989:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 940:Support Inclusion 864:RightCowLeftCoast 846:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 808:Support inclusion 690:-Serialjoepsycho- 650:-Serialjoepsycho- 627:-Serialjoepsycho- 553:Support Inclusion 385:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 381:interior designer 348:Support Inclusion 331:Support Inclusion 255:Support Inclusion 217:support inclusion 161:, a conservative 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3280: 3273: 3268: 3240: 3148: 3090: 2942: 2938: 2902: 2898: 2823: 2819: 2814: 2763: 2759: 2754: 2697: 2693: 2683: 2674: 2651: 2550: 2401: 2387: 2362: 2315: 2313: 2311: 2261: 2186: 2123: 2078: 2036: 2007: 1879: 1868: 1838: 1807: 1683: 1541: 1526: 1492: 1479: 1465: 1455: 1387: 1355: 1212: 1198: 1169: 1158: 961:Oppose Inclusion 909: 900: 894:Oppose inclusion 877:Oppose inclusion 827:Oppose inclusion 819: 814: 791:Oppose inclusion 782: 778: 772:Oppose Inclusion 752: 711:Oppose Inclusion 592:Strongly Support 574:Oppose Inclusion 536:Oppose Inclusion 523: 451: 434:Oppose Inclusion 417:Oppose Inclusion 377:Oppose Inclusion 272:Oppose Inclusion 232:oppose inclusion 114: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3288: 3287: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3260: 3234: 3142: 3084: 2940: 2936: 2900: 2896: 2888:Charles Keating 2821: 2817: 2792:Sorry, I meant 2761: 2757: 2695: 2691: 2645: 2582:Do not ping me. 2547:Serialjoepsycho 2544: 2395: 2381: 2359:Serialjoepsycho 2356: 2309: 2307: 2304:National Review 2296: 2293:National Review 2258:Serialjoepsycho 2255: 2183:Serialjoepsycho 2180: 2120:Serialjoepsycho 2117: 2075:Serialjoepsycho 2072: 2033:Serialjoepsycho 2030: 2001: 1872: 1862: 1832: 1820:how much money 1801: 1677: 1534: 1520: 1486: 1473: 1458: 1449: 1381: 1349: 1205: 1192: 1162: 1152: 985: 905: 898: 817: 812: 780: 776: 746: 600:notability rule 521: 450: 442: 327: 141: 110: 100: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3286: 3284: 3275: 3274: 3262: 3254: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3208: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2978: 2975: 2894:for starters. 2884:Stanley Marcus 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2808:which states: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2618:WP:CRYSTALBALL 2585: 2564: 2560: 2552: 2527: 2519: 2485: 2481: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2328: 2289: 2271: 2267: 2230: 2222: 2197: 2194: 2191: 2188: 2141: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1840: 1830: 1823: 1816: 1813:Charles Schwab 1809: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1685: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1615: 1614: 1600: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1500: 1493: 1484: 1481: 1396: 1389: 1379: 1364: 1357: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 984: 981: 980: 979: 969:Faceless Enemy 958: 937: 914: 891: 874: 861: 824: 805: 793:per SilkTorc. 788: 768: 767: 766: 765: 744: 727: 726: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 639: 638: 618: 596:living persons 589: 571: 550: 533: 478: 457: 443: 431: 414: 374: 345: 326: 323: 304: 303: 286: 269: 243: 242: 239: 228: 227: 224: 194:RSN discussion 142: 122: 121: 120: 101: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3285: 3272: 3267: 3264: 3258: 3253: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3238: 3237:BiologistBabe 3226: 3222: 3218: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3204: 3202: 3198: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3171: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3146: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3104: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3088: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3010: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2979: 2976: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2944: 2939: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2918: 2914: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2904: 2899: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2825: 2820: 2813: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2765: 2760: 2750: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2699: 2694: 2687: 2678: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2649: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2583: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2558: 2553: 2548: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2528: 2525: 2520: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2504: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2399: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2360: 2355: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2306: 2305: 2300: 2294: 2290: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2265: 2259: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2231: 2228: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2184: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2121: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2076: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2040: 2034: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2005: 1999: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1880: 1878: 1877: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1836: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1821: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1800: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1743:wikilawyering 1740: 1739: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1701: 1700: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1681: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1546: 1542: 1540: 1539: 1531: 1524: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1482: 1477: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1464: 1463: 1453: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1385: 1380: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1353: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1317: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1211: 1210: 1202: 1196: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1170: 1168: 1167: 1156: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1001: 999: 995: 990: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 959: 957: 953: 949: 948:BiologistBabe 945: 941: 938: 936: 932: 928: 923: 918: 915: 913: 912: 908: 903: 901: 895: 892: 890: 887: 886: 882: 878: 875: 873: 869: 865: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 834: 828: 825: 823: 820: 815: 809: 806: 804: 800: 796: 795:Capitalismojo 792: 789: 787: 784: 779: 773: 770: 769: 764: 760: 756: 750: 749:BurritoSlayer 745: 743: 739: 735: 731: 730: 729: 728: 725: 721: 717: 716:BurritoSlayer 712: 709: 708: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 682: 680: 676: 672: 668: 665: 661: 660: 659: 655: 651: 646: 643: 642: 641: 640: 637: 636: 632: 628: 623: 619: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 590: 588: 584: 580: 575: 572: 570: 566: 562: 558: 554: 551: 549: 545: 541: 537: 534: 532: 529: 528: 525: 524: 516: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 458: 456: 452: 449: 448: 439: 435: 432: 430: 426: 422: 418: 415: 413: 410: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 386: 382: 378: 375: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 346: 344: 340: 336: 332: 329: 328: 324: 322: 320: 316: 312: 308: 302: 298: 294: 290: 287: 285: 281: 277: 274:- Rationale. 273: 270: 268: 264: 260: 259:ISupportStuff 257:- Rationale. 256: 253: 252: 251: 248: 247: 240: 237: 236: 235: 233: 225: 222: 221: 220: 218: 213: 211: 207: 202: 201: 197: 195: 190: 188: 184: 180: 175: 172: 170: 166: 164: 160: 154: 152: 147: 146: 140: 136: 132: 127: 119: 116: 113: 108: 103: 102: 97: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3266: 3256: 3233: 3175:Donors Trust 3170:Donors Trust 3105: 3083: 3063: 3011: 3007: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2840: 2811: 2793: 2745: 2707:WP:LINKSYTLE 2685: 2676: 2644: 2609:wp:aboutself 2581: 2524:wp:aboutself 2462: 2443: 2423: 2419: 2416:Donors Trust 2405: 2394: 2390: 2380: 2308:. Retrieved 2302: 2299:"Dark Money" 2292: 2219:WP:ABOUTSELF 2125: 2080: 2039:Donors Trust 2029: 2013: 2009: 2000: 1982: 1968: 1929: 1875: 1874: 1843: 1826: 1819: 1812: 1746: 1728:Donors Trust 1723:Donors Trust 1719:Donors Trust 1696: 1688: 1643: 1639: 1559: 1537: 1536: 1529: 1503: 1496: 1461: 1460: 1399: 1392: 1367: 1360: 1333: 1318: 1279: 1258: 1208: 1207: 1165: 1164: 1101:Arthur Rubin 1097:Donors Trust 1062:Arthur Rubin 1057: 1032:Arthur Rubin 1005:Donors Trust 1002: 986: 960: 939: 927:TrainsOnTime 921: 916: 904: 902: 893: 883: 876: 831: 826: 807: 790: 771: 710: 644: 621: 620: 603: 591: 573: 552: 535: 526: 519: 515:Donors Trust 459: 446: 445: 437: 433: 416: 406:Arthur Rubin 402:Donors Trust 398:Donors Trust 394:Donors Trust 389: 376: 352:Donors Trust 347: 330: 306: 305: 288: 276:IOpposeStuff 271: 254: 249: 245: 244: 231: 229: 216: 214: 203: 199: 198: 191: 176: 173: 159:Donors Trust 156: 155: 153:subsection; 148: 145:The Question 144: 143: 117: 111: 104: 78: 43: 37: 2749:noteworthy? 2584:Understand? 2480:notability. 2310:February 7, 1730:standards. 1281:content is 1199:please see 1013:Paul Singer 854:Donor Trust 833:newspapers. 579:Fraulein451 234:have been; 219:have been; 36:This is an 3141:Honestly, 2794:noteworthy 2742:WP:BALANCE 2656:? Thanks. 2605:wp:autobio 2412:WP:SELFPUB 2239:wp:autobio 2138:WP:AUTOBIO 2130:WP:SELFPUB 1835:CorporateM 1804:Wikimandia 1563:CorporateM 1530:ad nauseum 1489:Wikimandia 1476:CorporateM 1419:CorporateM 1384:CorporateM 1376:Greenpeace 1352:Wikimandia 907:talk to me 468:CorporateM 2892:Joe Biden 2837:WP:weight 2833:wp:weight 2802:WP:WEIGHT 2738:WP:WEIGHT 881:Cool Hand 848:. As for 608:The Gnome 561:Aquillion 494:WP:WEIGHT 325:Responses 315:consensus 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 3215:account? 3188:NBC News 3183:NBC News 3179:NBC News 3124:NBC News 3122:because 3120:NBC News 3116:NBC News 2917:wp:undue 2654:WP:SYNTH 2613:wp:undue 2563:animals. 2557:WP:UNDUE 2004:SilkTork 1951:and the 1949:NBC News 1942:and the 1940:NBC News 1934:and the 1932:NBC News 1894:NBC News 1876:Мандичка 1691:" - See 1584:and the 1582:NBC News 1578:NBC News 1538:Мандичка 1462:Мандичка 1433:NBC News 1303:NBC News 1301:because 1299:NBC News 1293:because 1283:NBC News 1262:and the 1260:NBC News 1222:WP:IINFO 1209:Мандичка 1201:WP:IINFO 1166:Мандичка 1135:WP:UNDUE 1115:and the 1113:NBC News 1076:and the 1074:NBC News 996:and the 994:NBC News 965:WP:SYNTH 899:Flat Out 842:WP:SYNTH 679:NBC News 675:NBC News 540:Bus stop 522:SilkTork 486:WP:TOPIC 447:Мандичка 358:and the 356:NBC News 183:NBC News 174:Source: 3036:groups. 2857:weight. 2806:WP:NPOV 2611:above. 2580:Again, 2008:- re " 1374:held a 1372:Al Gore 944:WP:NPOV 917:Support 813:Cwobeel 39:archive 3041:NickCT 2983:NickCT 2952:WP:ANI 2913:wp:NNC 2890:, and 2776:WP:NNC 2601:wp:coi 2568:NickCT 2512:wp:nnc 2508:wp:nnc 2503:WP:NNC 2489:NickCT 2384:NickCT 2295:ref: ( 2279:NickCT 2274:WP:DUE 2264:WP:NNC 2262:- re " 2235:wp:coi 2227:WP:NNC 2202:NickCT 2149:NickCT 2134:WP:COI 2124:- re " 2085:NickCT 2079:- re " 2018:NickCT 1985:WP:DUE 1898:WP:DUE 1865:NickCT 1848:NickCT 1621:NickCT 1523:NickCT 1508:NickCT 1452:NickCT 1404:NickCT 1104:(talk) 1065:(talk) 1035:(talk) 850:WP:BLP 818:(talk) 664:WP:RSN 645:Oppose 496:, and 460:Oppose 409:(talk) 335:NickCT 131:GRuban 126:WP:BLP 3145:HughD 3067:buck. 2937:Atsme 2897:Atsme 2818:Atsme 2758:Atsme 2692:Atsme 2648:Atsme 2398:HughD 1195:HughD 1155:HughD 838:Atsme 777:Atsme 753:ping 557:WP:RS 404:. — 319:civil 16:< 3247:talk 3221:talk 3201:talk 3197:Hugh 3159:talk 3132:talk 3128:Hugh 3098:talk 3094:Hugh 3073:talk 3045:talk 3019:talk 2987:talk 2960:talk 2926:talk 2863:talk 2784:talk 2716:talk 2712:Hugh 2662:talk 2658:Hugh 2626:talk 2572:talk 2536:talk 2516:wp:n 2493:talk 2471:talk 2452:talk 2448:Hugh 2432:talk 2370:talk 2366:Hugh 2336:talk 2332:Hugh 2322:talk 2318:Hugh 2312:2015 2283:talk 2247:talk 2237:and 2206:talk 2172:talk 2153:talk 2109:talk 2089:talk 2064:talk 2048:talk 2044:Hugh 2022:talk 1993:talk 1989:Hugh 1975:talk 1971:Hugh 1961:talk 1957:Hugh 1907:talk 1903:Hugh 1852:talk 1842:re " 1825:re " 1818:re " 1811:re " 1783:talk 1769:talk 1765:Hugh 1755:talk 1736:talk 1732:Hugh 1709:talk 1693:here 1687:re " 1669:talk 1652:talk 1648:Hugh 1629:talk 1608:talk 1604:Hugh 1594:talk 1590:Hugh 1567:Talk 1512:talk 1502:re " 1495:re " 1441:talk 1437:Hugh 1423:Talk 1408:talk 1398:re " 1391:re " 1366:re " 1359:re " 1340:talk 1336:Hugh 1326:talk 1322:Hugh 1311:talk 1307:Hugh 1272:talk 1268:Hugh 1230:talk 1226:Hugh 1184:talk 1180:Hugh 1151:FYI 1143:talk 1139:Hugh 1125:talk 1121:Hugh 1087:talk 1083:Hugh 1048:talk 1044:Hugh 1021:talk 1017:Hugh 1007:and 973:talk 952:talk 931:talk 922:Also 885:Luke 868:talk 799:talk 759:talk 755:Hugh 738:talk 734:Hugh 720:talk 694:talk 686:here 667:here 654:talk 631:talk 612:talk 583:talk 565:talk 544:talk 508:and 504:and 472:Talk 425:talk 383:). 368:talk 364:Hugh 339:talk 311:vote 297:talk 280:talk 263:talk 208:and 135:talk 3060:BLP 2852:or 2848:or 1881:😜 1699:". 1543:😜 1467:😜 1214:😜 1171:😜 604:not 453:😜 390:why 181:". 169:ref 3249:) 3223:) 3203:) 3177:, 3161:) 3134:) 3100:) 3075:) 3047:) 3021:) 2989:) 2962:) 2954:. 2928:) 2886:, 2865:) 2835:. 2786:) 2740:, 2718:) 2664:) 2628:) 2574:) 2538:) 2510:. 2495:) 2473:) 2454:) 2434:) 2372:) 2338:) 2324:) 2301:. 2285:) 2249:) 2208:) 2174:) 2155:) 2136:, 2132:, 2111:) 2091:) 2066:) 2050:) 2024:) 1995:) 1987:. 1977:) 1963:) 1955:. 1909:) 1854:) 1785:) 1771:) 1757:) 1738:) 1711:) 1671:) 1654:) 1631:) 1610:) 1596:) 1588:. 1569:) 1514:) 1443:) 1425:) 1410:) 1342:) 1328:) 1313:) 1274:) 1232:) 1186:) 1145:) 1127:) 1089:) 1058:is 1050:) 1023:) 1000:. 975:) 967:. 954:) 933:) 870:) 801:) 761:) 740:) 722:) 696:) 656:) 633:) 614:) 585:) 567:) 546:) 492:, 488:, 484:, 474:) 427:) 370:) 341:) 299:) 282:) 265:) 212:. 185:. 171:) 137:) 109:. 64:← 3245:( 3239:: 3235:@ 3219:( 3199:( 3157:( 3147:: 3143:@ 3130:( 3096:( 3089:: 3085:@ 3071:( 3043:( 3017:( 2985:( 2958:( 2941:☯ 2924:( 2901:☯ 2861:( 2822:☯ 2782:( 2762:☯ 2746:] 2714:( 2696:☯ 2660:( 2650:: 2646:@ 2624:( 2570:( 2549:: 2545:@ 2534:( 2491:( 2469:( 2450:( 2430:( 2400:: 2396:@ 2386:: 2382:@ 2368:( 2361:: 2357:@ 2334:( 2320:( 2314:. 2281:( 2260:: 2256:@ 2245:( 2221:. 2204:( 2185:: 2181:@ 2170:( 2151:( 2122:: 2118:@ 2107:( 2087:( 2077:: 2073:@ 2062:( 2046:( 2035:: 2031:@ 2020:( 2006:: 2002:@ 1991:( 1973:( 1959:( 1905:( 1873:— 1867:: 1863:@ 1850:( 1839:- 1837:: 1833:@ 1808:- 1806:: 1802:@ 1781:( 1767:( 1753:( 1734:( 1707:( 1684:- 1682:: 1678:@ 1667:( 1650:( 1627:( 1606:( 1592:( 1565:( 1535:— 1525:: 1521:@ 1510:( 1491:: 1487:@ 1480:- 1478:: 1474:@ 1459:— 1454:: 1450:@ 1439:( 1421:( 1406:( 1388:- 1386:: 1382:@ 1356:- 1354:: 1350:@ 1338:( 1324:( 1309:( 1270:( 1228:( 1206:— 1197:: 1193:@ 1182:( 1163:— 1157:: 1153:@ 1141:( 1123:( 1085:( 1046:( 1019:( 971:( 950:( 929:( 866:( 797:( 781:☯ 757:( 751:: 747:@ 736:( 718:( 692:( 652:( 629:( 610:( 581:( 563:( 542:( 470:( 444:— 423:( 366:( 337:( 295:( 278:( 261:( 167:( 165:. 133:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index