Talk:MacArthur Foundation

message: The Foundation's support for liberal causes is a key aspect of its grant-making. Please see the following sources:
* "Today the MacArthur Foundation is one of the pillars of the liberal philanthropic establishment." 
* "In one recent year, the five leading liberal philanthropic organizations--the Ford, Rockefeller and MacArthur foundations, the Pew Trusts and the Carnegie Corporation..." 
* "But given the foundation’s liberalism, it is clear that nearly all the MacArthur winners are on the left side of the political spectrum." 
* "The MacArthur Foundation, founded in 1970 by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, is one of the country's largest private foundations and provides research grants for mostly liberal causes." 
* "...liberal foundations (like the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation) support liberal shows..."  
It is frequently described as a liberal foundation, and the body of our article and the sources verify that. It's appropriate to include this description in the lead. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal foundation 

message: Today it was announced that: 
New MacArthur Competition to Award $100 Million to Help Solve a Critical Problem of Our Time - See more at: https://www.macfound.org/press/press-releases/new-macarthur-competition-award-100-million-help-solve-critical-social-problem/#sthash.1LoRj1wv.dpuf
This should be added to the article. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a brief section on this. --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a WP:SECONDARY source for this material that's not a press release from the organization itself? Safehaven86 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New MacArthur Competition to Award $100 Million to Help Solve a Critical Problem of Our Time  

message: Here is some proposed content for an RFC:
"John D. MacArthur originally set up the MacArthur Foundation for tax avoidance reasons. Between 1979 and 1981, John's son J. Roderick MacArthur, an ideological opponent of his father with whom the elder MacArthur had an acrimonious relationship, waged a legal battle against the Foundation for control of the board of directors. The younger MacArthur sued eight members of the board, accusing them of mismanagement of the Foundation's finances. By 1981, most of the original board had been replaced by members who agreed with J. Roderick MacArthur's desire to support liberal causes. This ultimately resulted in the creation of what, in 2008, Martin Morse Wooster called 'one of the pillars of the liberal philanthropic establishment.'" In 1984, MacArthur again sued the board of directors, asking a Cook County circuit court to liquidate the entire MacArthur Foundation. He dropped the suit later that same year when he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer." Safehaven86 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please see above. Again, this exceeds what is needed: and for what purpose? It could easily be condensed to a single sentence similar to this: "Father and son had an acrimonious relationship because of their different political beliefs. After his father's death, Rod successfully reshaped the board to make it less reflective of his father's influence." I'm sure that can be found in one or two reliable sources. But adding so much more becomes undue. Especially in an article this size. X4n6 (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can propose specific text and sourcing (not sure if what you wrote above is a formal proposal or just a rough idea) and we can discuss that here, or I can open an RFC regarding my proposal above. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've indicated, while I'm fine with discussing this and reaching some consensus prior to adding anything to the article, I am not fine with continued edit warring or posting prior to consensus. So I've removed your recent edits. I think we all need to agree to that procedure so that we can edit collaboratively. Once consensus is reached, we can add the agreed-upon version. X4n6 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Clpo13, I'll respect what you chose to remove. But I do agree with you. History is important. But if the history becomes excessive, it should be a separate article. It should also be condensed, per UNDUE. So it looks like we're saying the same thing. X4n6 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed RFC

message: A third opinion has been requested.  It isn't entirely clear what the question is.  If it is whether Sourcewatch is a reliable source, I would say to take that question to the reliable source noticeboard, and would point out two issues with Sourcewatch.  First, the matter of the question to which they are user-generated and so unreliable is a reliable source question, but also, their parent company, CDM, is unashamedly liberal and does not claim neutral point of view.  I also note that Clpo13 has offered an opinion.  If there still is a question, state it clearly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  what is your opinion on the reliability of Sourcewatch? Do you support taking this discussion to RSN? Safehaven86 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support taking it to RSN. I don't have an opinion on its reliability, though I don't think it's necessary to use at all. We shouldn't have this sort of "Alice says this, but Bob says Alice is biased, but Carol says Bob is biased, but... [ad infinitum]" point and counterpoint just to have a sense of balance. Either Wooster is reliable or he's not. We don't need to confuse the reader by casting doubt on him because Sourcewatch doesn't like his politics. Maybe Wooster should be brought up at RSN, too, since his credentials have been questioned. It's strange how this went from Wooster's "pillars of the liberal philanthropic establishment" comment being undue () to Wooster himself being POV and unreliable (). clpo13(talk) 20:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your thoughts, makes sense to me. Per WP:BIASED, reliable sources can be biased, although we should always keep WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in mind. There seems to be an argument here than Wooster is not reliable because he is conservative. I don't think that disqualifies him as a source; many people are conservative or liberal or what have you and their opinions are notable. We've described him as conservative, which seems enough to me. I am specifically interested in whether Sourcewatch is WP:RS because that's the question at hand here--no one seems to have said Wooster is not a reliable source, just that they don't want to include his quote because they view it as WP:POV. I'm not challenging the reliability of Wooster, so if someone wants to bring that to a noticeboard, fine, but it shouldn't get all wrapped up with the Sourcewatch issue. Two separate sources, two separate issues. I'll ping people here when I start a thread at RSN. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I have questioned Wooster's reliability. Just as you've questioned SourceWatch, because you don't like their liberal bona fides. And I'm happy to take the question to a noticeboard. But you should know my questions about Wooster, unlike yours about SourceWatch, have nothing to do with his political bent. That's where we differ. X4n6 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the SourceWatch source, as SourceWatch is certainly not a reliable source. It is such a problematic source that I regularly search to see if it is being used as a source so that I can swiftly remove it. It is as reliable as Conservapedia or any other editable-by-the-public wiki platform with an ideological axe to grind, that is, not at all. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have unilaterally determined what is a source - without providing any basis, policy or otherwise? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You may want to review the conversation above before contributing further. You are certainly welcome to join the discussion, but you are being reverted until you can provide more substance to your view than just the view itself. X4n6 (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed the discussion above, and SafeHaven is correct that SourceWatch is not allowed per WP:USERGENERATED. It is a wiki which anyone can edit. I could edit it right now, in fact, and then add it on Wikipedia as a source for whatever I wanted. I could create my very own source to say whatever I want it to say, then link back to it as an echo chamber. That's why it's a problem. There is no apparent editorial control or reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, which are required under WP:RS. Our policy on reliable sources is quite clear about that. SourceWatch is quite clear about how anyone can edit it. You may have it confused with PR Watch, which is bylined and has editorial control, and which is also a product of the Center for Media and Democracy. That can be used as a source in certain contexts, but SourceWatch cannot. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have reviewed this discussion, then you are aware that, not only does WP:USERGENERATED provide an exception for some wikis - but this quote is sourced to the editor of the website, who is a professional journalist. So this is a perfectly legitimate edit, as has already been established here. You still have provided no substance to your objection, nor any response to what has already been determined. This may well end up at a noticeboard if we don't reach consensus. But it won't be solved by you trying to edit war. So please stop and discuss your concerns here, but do not remove any sources from the article again. X4n6 (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous. The burden is on the editor who wants to add disputed material to the article. You need to convince others that is should be added. You haven't done that. There are multiple other editors here explaining why SourceWatch isn't reliable, and you're just choosing not to hear it. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring policies that defeat your position in favor of those that help you is nothing new. Neither is the fact that you've found another user to tagteam "consensus." But if, despite policy, SourceWatch is ultimately found unreliable, then next we'll determine if Wooster meets the same standard. X4n6 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Foundation states
In the past, many state insurance regulators have had serious concerns about allowing for-profit insurance companies – as opposed to mutual insurance companies – to be ultimately controlled by non-profit entities.[citation needed] In a famous case regarding this, the MacArthur Foundation was forced to divest itself of Bankers Life and Accident.
JDE 79.78.218.203 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  For profit insurance controlled by not-profit