Talk:Philanthropy Roundtable

Untitled

so ... what's the source for the long quotes that make up this article? This is probably a copyvio. - Nat Krause 11:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

"This article uses content from the SourceWatch article on Philanthropy Roundtable under the terms of the GFDL." - There's your answer. It could use a cleanup though, so that the quotes could be removed. - Richardcavell 02:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision

Okay, I am working on a wholecloth revision here. The previous version, which someone had tagged as "reading like an advertisement," was riddled with NPOV-compliance issues, so I just wiped the slate clean for the most part and tried to come up with a reasonably useful version. If it seems to be missing anything that looks important, please add it. DickClarkMises 04:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Philanthropy magazine.jpg

Image:Philanthropy magazine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lede Discussion

There are two refs at the proposed new lede, one (in passing, in an obit) refers to conservative as a conservative version of the Council on Foundations. The other refers to the org as "politically conservative" but again is a passing ref to this organization. I note that nothing in our article about the Council on Foundations suggests that it is liberal. I see no indications that either organization is a "political organization", and find the refs weak support for calling a non-profit "politically conservative". Hence my "weak tea" edit summary. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The current "non-partisan" is ref'd to NYT. The "conservative" to an Am Spectator blog. I suggest that perhaps we include the new information with attribute in the body rather than the lede given the strength of NYT vs American Spectator refs. Thoughts? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite right. The "conservative" moniker was supported by both the AmSpec source and an NPQ source, both reliable. (Btw I see nothing bloggy about the AmSpec source.) An organization can have a political ideology ("conservative") without having a partisan affiliation ("nonpartisan"). Thus, no conflict. Both should be included. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the NYT and Washington Times are better sources than Nonprofit Quarterly and the American Spectator. That's not to say the latter two aren't reliable, just that NYT and WT would seem to me to be more reliable. Additionally, per WP:MOSLEAD, the lead should summarize the body. I don't see any discussion about this organization's apparent politically conservative activity in the body. Therefore, the characterization as conservative in the lead seems a bit confusing (the given sources don't help as they only mention the organization in passing and don't expand upon the conservative characterization with examples or activities). I would suggest moving the conservative characterization to the body of the article and including an expanded section of the group's political activities. Then, from this new section, we can ultimately add a summary to the lead. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you read what I wrote. The comparative reliability of the NY Times and the Washington Times versus AmSpec and NPQ is completely irrelevant. They are being used to support two different things that are not mutually exclusive ("nonpartisan" and "politically conservative"). The inclusion of the organization's political ideology is highly noteworthy and absolutely belongs in the lead section, and the fact that it's not in the body is not a valid reason for exclusion from the lead. (WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis says: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. ... This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.") You and I both know that the political ideologies of non-profit organizations is routinely and prominently included in lead sections. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's not a policy mandating that all sourced characterizations of an organization's ideology be included in the lead. If any of the articles provided a substantive description or discussion about the organization's ideology, then it would probably make sense. But it seems undue to include passing mentions in the first sentence. Based on our current sourcing, the organization is not known primarily or even typically for its role in conservative politics. That's why I suggested a compromise between Capitalismojo and your edits, which is to move the content to the body, which I will do shortly. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems fine. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm disagree with this change, as the political ideology of any group, if properly sources, is one of its most noteworthy aspects. However if no one else is going to weigh in on the subject then I'm willing to accept the 2-1 !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philanthropy Roundtable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philanthropynewsdigest.org/newsmakers/adam-meyerson-president-philanthropy-roundtable-donors-and-philanthropic-intent

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)