Talk:M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some proposed changes

I respectfully request some updates be made to this page. I apologize up front if any of my requests are formatted incorrectly. As disclosed on my User Page, I am the Director of Communications for the Murdock Trust and wish to submit these under Wikipedia's conflict of interest disclosure guidelines to ensure updates are made in an unbiased fashion.

As outlined below, I would like to suggest adding some content to the introductory section of this article to provide additional clarity and context around the Murdock Trust's work, as well as to clear up a couple of minor inaccurate statements. I would also request some alterations be made to the criticism section, including the removal of a single paragraph as noted below.

The original drafted content is based on statements made by a political advocacy group that has targeted the Murdock Trust over a small number of grants with which they disagree. We fully understand that not everyone will agree with every grant made and we welcome that discussion and debate, however characterizations that the Murdock Trust is anti-gay or anti-women are inaccurate and biased statements. As documented in the citations provided, the Murdock Trust does not fund projects that are discriminatory against any group.

I request the paragraph referencing Jeff Grubb be removed because it is based on a misrepresented premise. As stated above, the Murdock Trust does not fund projects that are discriminatory towards any group. The grant in question, made to the Alliance Defending Freedom, was made to support a project helping college students facing first amendment challenges on their campuses. It was in no way related to any anti-LGBT activity.

ColbyReade (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)User:ColbyReade

Intro Paragraph

The M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust is a private, nonprofit foundation based in Vancouver, Washington. The Murdock Trust provides grants to nonprofits that serve the Pacific Northwest, specifically Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The Trust funds projects that serve four primary areas: scientific research, arts and culture, education and health and human services needs. [1]

The Murdock Trust was created in 1975 after the death of Tektronix co-founder Melvin Jack Murdock (1917–1971) with a $90 million charitable bequest from his estate. [Pat Jollota (2012). "Legendary Locals of Vancouver, Washington". Arcadia Publishing. p. 124. Retrieved 2017-10-18.]

In 2016, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $49 million to nonprofit organizations. [2]

Since its inception, the Murdock Trust has given more than $900 million in grants to nonprofits for projects that reach communities in the Pacific Northwest. [3] As of 2016, the Murdock Trust was the second largest grant-making foundation in the Portland-Metro area. [4]

In addition to grant making, the Murdock Trust hosts training and convening programs for educators, students and nonprofits throughout the year in the Pacific Northwest. Programming includes conferences for college students, professors and instructors, as well as training courses for fundraisers, board development seminars and leadership programs for women in management roles. [5] [6] [7].

ColbyReade (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)User:ColbyReade

Criticism Section

Some of the Murdock Trust's grants have been criticized in recent years by political advocacy groups that accuse the Trust of funding political organizations. [8] For example, The Murdock Trust has donated at least $975,000 to the Alliance Defending Freedom, including $375,000 in 2016.[9] . The Alliance Defending Freedom has been criticized as an anti-LGBTQ organization, designated a "hate group" in February 2017 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[10] The stated purpose of the grants to ADF was to help college students defend their first amendment rights on campus. [11]

The Murdock Trust has also contributed to pro-business and conservative organizations, like the Cascade Policy Institute, National Right to Work, the Heritage Foundation, and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Pro-life organizations receiving funding include Americans United for Life, Focus on the Family, Standupgirl.com Foundation, and numerous crisis pregnancy centers.[12]

ColbyReade (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)User:ColbyReade

Request removal

Request removal of this sentence as it is a misrepresentation. The Murdock Trust does not fund grant requests "For institutions that, in policy or practice, unfairly discriminate against race, ethnic origin, sex, creed or religion." The information referenced in the two citations is based on biased content from a political organization that disagrees with a small number of grants awarded by the Trust over time. We understand criticism of the Trust is documented and we do not object to its inclusion, just this sentence.

One of three paid Trustees, with John Castles and Jeff Pinneo; Jeff Grubb— who retired as executive vice president of wealth management for besieged Wells Fargo in 2017 —according to Portland Business Journal, stated, in 2015, that "the Murdock Trust does not give money to anti-gay or anti-women groups," despite financial disclosures previously published on the Trust's website,[7] and elsewhere.[8]

ColbyReade (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)User:ColbyReade

Wiki markup quick reference (PDF download)

@ColbyReade: I'm sorry, but your request was not properly formatted. To expedite your request, please ensure that all necessary wikitext markup has been included. For assistance, please use the downloadable style sheet located to the left of this text. For a full list of editing commands, see Help:Wikitext. If you'd rather not use wikitext markup, you can try Visual Editor. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you User:Spintendo. I believe I have updated the formatting appropriately. I appreciate the guidance.

ColbyReade (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)User:ColbyReade

ColbyReade (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)User:ColbyReade

ColbyReade (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade

Proposed edits to provide additional factual, background to intro paragraph

Request the following edits to clarify one factual error regarding the Murdock Trust and to add some additional information regarding its operations and history.

The M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust is a private, nonprofit foundation based in Vancouver, Washington that contributes to causes around the United States.. The Murdock Trust provides grants to nonprofits that serve the Pacific Northwest, specifically Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The Trust funds projects that serve four primary areas: scientific research, arts and culture, education and health and human services needs.

The Murdock Trust was created in 1975 after the death of Tektronix co-founder Melvin Jack Murdock (1917–1971) with a $90 million charitable bequest from his estate.

In 2016, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $49 million to nonprofit organizations.

Since its inception, the Murdock Trust has given more than $900 million in grants to nonprofits for projects that reach communities in the Pacific Northwest. As of 2016, the Murdock Trust was the second largest grant-making foundation in the Portland-Metro area.

In addition to grant making, the Murdock Trust hosts training and convening programs for educators, students and nonprofits throughout the year in the Pacific Northwest. Programming includes conferences for college students, professors and instructors, as well as training courses for fundraisers, board development seminars and leadership programs for women in management roles., , . 05:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade

ColbyReade (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

 Declined I see claim statements made here, but I don't see specific edit requests with directions for placement, removal, appendation or concatenation. Where are the claim statements to be placed? Are they replacing claims already on the page? Or merely succeeding them? Which references stay, and which ones are removed? Is this a new request? Or has an editor already handled your request, and you wish to disagree? These details are not unimportant. Please advise. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

|}

4 January 2018 proposed revisions

I would like to propose a few edits to the introductory paragraph of the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust Wikipedia page. These edits are to clarify a factual error and provide additional background on the Trust's work.

1 - Strike the following verbiage from the opening line. This statement is not accurate as the Trust serves nonprofits serving the Pacific Northwest.

The M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust is a 501(c)(3) organization based in Vancouver, Washington that contributes to causes around the United States..

2 - Replace the phrase "501(c)(3) organization" with "private, nonprofit foundation" as the Trust is a private, nonprofit foundation.

The M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust is a private, nonprofit foundation based in Vancouver, Washington.

3 - Insert the following phrase to clarify the Trust's service area.

The M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust is a private, nonprofit foundation based in Vancouver, Washington. The Murdock Trust provides grants to nonprofits that serve the Pacific Northwest, specifically Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The Trust funds projects that serve four primary areas: scientific research, arts and culture, education and health and human services needs.

4 - Following the sentence "The Murdock Trust was created in 1975 after the death of Tektronix co-founder Melvin Jack Murdock (1917–1971) with a $90 million charitable bequest from his estate" insert the following lines. This additional copy states the Trust's funding and grant making history as well as additional services offered beyond grant making.

In 2016, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $49 million to nonprofit organizations.

Since its inception, the Murdock Trust has given more than $900 million in grants to nonprofits for projects that reach communities in the Pacific Northwest. As of 2016, the Murdock Trust was the second largest grant-making foundation in the Portland-Metro area.

In addition to grant making, the Murdock Trust hosts training and convening programs for educators, students and nonprofits throughout the year in the Pacific Northwest. Programming includes conferences for college students, professors and instructors, as well as training courses for fundraisers, board development seminars and leadership programs for women in management roles., , .

References

ColbyReade (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)UserColbyReade

 Implemented Please note that portions of your request were edited for clarity and brevity. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

3 Jan. 2018 deletions

@David notMD: - I appreciate your intention in deleting the Mission Statement; however, like annual financial statements, all formal mission statements can claim an exception, in that they are published by the legal entities represented, so looking elsewhere for a "published, independent source for this information," as one does for most other information, is pointless. Since corporate Mission Statements are intended to provide the public with a short template of what is expected of the entity, I disagree with the deletion — I had added the Statement as a valid measure of the appropriateness of events involving the charity.

Further, I also disagree with your deletion of the names of two Board Members of the Trust, John Castles and Jeff Pinneo — truly, what is the point of ever removing any valid Board member names? I'd say that all Board members' names can and should be included on any registered charity's page. Also, the fact of Grubb's Wells-Fargo connection, which you've deleted, is very relevant, as he speaks for another besieged entity, which you have deemed "not relevant to the criticism," though a spokesperson's professional history is always relevent to the statements they make.

Overall, your deletions are surprising, seem unnecessary, and appear to be without true reason. AHampton (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Perhaps your comment refers only to the reference list, which is not a part of my note, and which I did not add. I do not know from where that reference list originates. Your comment follows mine... and so appears an answer to my complaint of deletions which appear prejudicial and/or uncalled for... the "reflist-talk" in between is not a part of my note, which ends with my signature, as does this one. AHampton (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: What is it that you mean to "decline?" My statements were about specific edits previously made which were later deleted in what seems a rather arbitrary or prejudicial manner... as described. Yet, it seems that I've entered an alternate universe where you "don't see specific edit requests with directions for placement..." One may have to look at the page history in order to know what of they speak. AHampton (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

8 January 2018 Deletion Request

I would like to propose/request two deletions from the "Criticism" section of this page. One of these is a factual correction and one is the removal of a misrepresentation.

1. Remove "Standupgirl.com foundation." The Murdock Trust has not provided a grant to this group.

The Murdock Trust has also contributed to a host of other pro-business and conservative organizations, like the Cascade Policy Institute, National Right to Work, the Heritage Foundation, and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Pro-life organizations receiving funding include Americans United for Life, Focus on the Family, Standupgirl.com Foundation, and numerous crisis pregnancy centers.[9]

2. Remove line referencing anti-gay, anti-women organizations. This is a misrepresentation that stems from a misunderstanding of Trust grants and Trust policy. The PBJ article cited to support this line (Citation 10) points to a Murdock Trust grant to the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Trust awarded a grant to ADF to support college students dealing with first amendment challenges on their school campuses. This was not a grant that was "anti-gay" or "anti-women"

(the line requested to be deleted)→ "Jeff Grubb, one of three paid Trustees of the Trust, stated in 2015 that "the Murdock Trust does not give money to anti-gay or anti-women groups," despite financial disclosures previously published on the Trust's website.[10]"

ColbyReade (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade

Partially implemented

1. I removed the claim of standupgirl.com. Even though the Trust has given donations to various groups in the Oregon area, ORTL did not appear to be one of them. This from a perusal of 4 years worth of Form 990's.
2. The Trust donated $375K to the Alliance Defending Freedom in 2016. The Alliance's political interests are fairly well-documented. Unless he was misquoted, I know of no other reason why Trustee Grubb's comments should be removed. Please advise.

Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

References

@User:Spintendo

Thank you for your response. To your second comment regarding the deletion of the line referencing Jeff Grubb (which appears to have been edited since my last note to include Jeff Pinneo and John Castles), this is an important distinction to make. This line is using an unfair transitive connection to label the Murdock Trust in an inaccurate fashion (i.e. that the Trust is anti-gay and anti-women). To clarify the situation:

- The Murdock Trust does not make open-ended or "blanket" grants to organizations. Grants are connected to a program or project with a defined purpose. In other words, the Trust does not simply give organizations funds to use as they please, grants are made to support a specific, defined project.

- As a policy, the Murdock Trust does not support or fund projects that discriminate against any specific group or are designed to cause harm to individuals.

- We do not expect every person or organization to approve of every grant we make. Nor do we expect to agree with everything that grant recipients do or say as the Trust supports a widely diverse collection of groups serving widely diverse populations. In this spirit, we understand that there are some groups who are critical of the Trust’s decision to fund ADF. The distinction that we draw and that we feel is warranted in this Wikipedia article is the assertion that the Trust is anti-gay or anti-women. This statement is not true. In fact, the Trust has an established track record of supporting a broad array of organizations, including groups like Reed College, the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project and Young Women Empowered.

- The Alliance Defending Freedom is involved in several projects and programs dealing with a variety of issues. In this case, the Trust's grant was made to support a project that is focused on helping colleges develop policies and college students to defend and protect their first amendment rights on their campuses. Though some groups have tried to frame it this way, Trust funds were not provided in any way in relation to ADF’s efforts regarding bathroom bill legislation in North Carolina (which is also outside of the Pacific Northwest and the Trust’s region of focus).

- For comparison sake, think about a medical group that specializes in the treatment of terminally ill patients. Doctor number one is in favor of assisted suicide for select patients and is actively working for legal support that would allow the practice to proceed. A second doctor is investigating a new gene therapy that can prolong the life of patients while reducing their discomfort. A third doctor focuses on providing patients with traditional treatments that emphasize keeping the patient as comfortable as possible during whatever time they have left. If you choose to go see doctor number one or you make a donation to his or her legal efforts, this does not mean you are also supporting the gene therapy efforts of doctor number two or the status quo practice of doctor three simply because they are part of the same medical group, nor does it mean you are condemning their work either. You are supporting one specific project within a broader organization. Again, the Murdock Trust has an established track record of supporting a wide variety of organizations representing a great diversity of viewpoints, including the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, Young Women Empowered, the Boys and Girls Club, Habitat for Humanity, and the Union Gospel Mission.

- To summarize: The Murdock Trust is not anti-gay or anti-women. The grant made to ADF was about first amendment rights and only about first amendment rights. Using this transitive connection to say, “because the Trust supported project X and the organization is also working on project Y, then the Trust also supports project Y” is unfair and inaccurate.

With this in mind, and to reflect the updated nature of the page, I would request the following line be deleted:

One of three paid Trustees, with John Castles and Jeff Pinneo; Jeff Grubb— who retired as executive vice president of wealth management for besieged Wells Fargo in 2017 —according to Portland Business Journal, stated, in 2015, that "the Murdock Trust does not give money to anti-gay or anti-women groups," despite financial disclosures previously published on the Trust's website,[10] and elsewhere.[11]

Submitted respectfully for your consideration

19:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade

@Spintendo:

Hello Spintendo. I wanted to flag my above response to your feedback on this requested deletion. Your review of my explanation at your convenience is appreciated. Thank you

ColbyReade (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC) ColbyReade

I did receive this last ping about this message. The first one which was made 6 days ago I did not receive because it was improperly formatted. To answer the scenario you proposed earlier, it is true that money, once it changes hands, falls under the purview of its new owner, and that the giver of the money should only be held to that fact — that they gave money, and should only be held responsible for what that money is used for to a degree.

Imagine that person A loans rent money to Person B. Person B lives with and pays rent to Person C. Person C uses the rent money to pay Person C's bills including the lease on a car. One day, Person C robs a bank, and uses their own personal leased car as the getaway. Following the money trail, would it be better to describe Person A as (1) a person whose money ended up in the hands of a bank robber, or (2) a person who funds bank robberies?

Here, the article is not claiming that MT is anti-LGBT. It states two things: that MT gave money to ADF (sourced by MT), and that ADF is "anti-LGBT" (sourced by the SPLC). Just as it would be wrong to describe Person A as a funder of bank robberies, the article does not claim that MT funds anti-LGBT activities, because that would be patently false.

I agree with you that the sentence, added by AHampton is poorly worded, as it repeats information already included elsewhere in the article to hammer their point ("... despite financial disclosures previously published on the Trust's website." which is WP:PLEONASM). I will edit it to be more clear. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

As always, thank you for your feedback and thoughts on this. The resolution you've implemented is appreciated.

ColbyReade (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Addition - "About Melvin Jack Murdock"

1. I would like to propose adding a new section to this page titled "About Melvin Jack Murdock." This section will provide biographical background on the benefactor of the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust. This information will add context to how the Trust's endowment was established, the Trust's funding priorities and service area.

2. I have provided a proposed draft for this section and request it be published as follows:

Melvin Jack Murdock was born in Portland, OR, on August 15, 1917. A graduate of Franklin High School, he discovered an early passion for radio, studying the subject constantly beginning in his early teen years and even opening an equipment repair shop in his home. When presented with the choice of college or starting his own business upon graduation, he chose to launch “Murdock Radio and Appliance Company” in 1935 in southeast Portland.

In 1936, Jack Murdock began working with Howard Vollum. Following a four-year stint serving in the United States Coast Guard from 1942 to 1946, the two would ultimately launch Tektronix a decade later in Beaverton, Oregon. The company would become one of the world’s largest manufacturers of oscilloscopes, as well as other electronic devices. Jack Murdock began as the company’s Vice President and General Manager before assuming the role of Chairman of the Board in 1960. He would hold this position until his passing in 1971.

In 1966, the University of Portland awarded Jack Murdock an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters.

Outside of the office, Jack Murdock had several hobbies. A passionate aviator flying out of Pearson Airfield in Vancouver, Washington, his favorite plane was a Piper Super Cub. Jack Murdock enjoyed gardening and worked closely with Oregon Bulb Farms. He was also dedicated to supporting mental health services and a committed philanthropist, contributing to a variety of community efforts through his own foundation.

Jack Murdock died on Sunday, May 16, 1971, in a plane crash on the Columbia River. According to reports, the plane lost power and overturned near Maryhill, WA. A companion who was also onboard the flight was able to swim to shore, but Jack Murdock was caught by the current and pulled under. His body was never recovered, and he was declared legally deceased on June 11, 1971. He was 53 years old. Jack Murdock never married and had no immediate relatives. He left the vast majority of his estate, approximately $80 million in 1971 to a charitable foundation that would become the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust (the total fund amount would reach approximately $91 million by the time the Trust began operation in 1975).

ColbyReade (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

Partially implemented The information on the trust's founding (which was largely already present in the lead section, as well as being the only information in this latest request to contain a sufficient second party source) has been moved to the body, under the heading 'History'. The additional information regarding the Death and Life of Melvin Jack Murdock was declined, as sufficient second or third party references were not provided. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you for the feedback. It was very helpful context. Based on your response, I have made revisions and would like to respectfully resubmit a few proposed additions for consideration. These offer relevant background details and context regarding Jack Murdock's professional path that led to the creation of the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust. Please note, per your feedback, all of these additions are validated by at least two 3rd party resources that are fully independent of the Murdock Trust.

1. Revise the first line of the "History" section. This revision does not change any factual items, it just updates the language to flow with the following additions.

After the death of Tektronix co-founder Melvin Jack Murdock (1917–1971), the origins of the trust began with a $90 million bequest from his estate to a charitable foundation which later became the The M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust was founded with a $90 million bequest from the estate of Tektronix co-founder Melvin Jack Murdock (1917-1971).

2. Insert the following into the History section. This content establishes the basis for the relationship between Jack Murdock and Howard Vollum that would ultimately lead to the formation of Tektronix and Murdock's role within the company.

Jack Murdock graduated from Franklin High School in 1935 and opened the Murdock Radio and Appliance Company in Southeast Portland. He would begin working with Howard Vollum at this location in 1936. Following service in the U.S. Coast Guard during World War Two, Jack Murdock co-founded Tektronix with Howard Vollum, Glenn Leland and Miles Tippery in 1946. Tektronix would ultimately become the worldwide leader in the oscilloscope market. Beginning as the company’s Vice President and General Manager, Jack Murdock assumed the role of Chairman of the Board in 1960. He would hold this position until his passing in 1971.

3. Insert the following into the History section. This establishes the philanthropic efforts pursued by Jack Murdock during his lifetime that would lead to his desire to create the Murdock Trust following his death.

In addition to his work in technology, Jack Murdock was a committed philanthropist, contributing to a variety of community efforts through his own foundation during his lifetime.

4. Insert the following into the History section. This documents the circumstances surrounding Jack Murdock's passing, the timeline between his death and the creation of the Trust and the terms of his will that lead to the formation of the Trust.

Jack Murdock died on Sunday, May 16, 1971, in a plane crash on the Columbia River. According to reports, the plane lost power and overturned near Maryhill, WA. He was 53 years old. Jack Murdock never married and had no immediate relatives. He left the vast majority of his estate, approximately $80 million in 1971, to form the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust. The total fund amount would reach $90 million by the time the Trust began operation in 1975.

ColbyReade (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC) User:ColbyReade

I have been researching this remarkable Portland, Oregon individual for some time, in preparation for creating his Wikipedia page — which is how I even ended up on the Trust's page, only to be distracted and waylaid by uncalled for, repetitive deletions of factual content. While I feel that my own Murdock research is thorough, I will certainly take all of this information into account when creating Murdoch's page. An "About" section will largely be replaced by a link to the new page. You are welcome to beat me to the punch on the full page, of course. AHampton (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Information added by AHampton

"One of three paid Trustees, with John Castles and Jeff Pinneo; Jeff Grubb— who retired as executive vice president of wealth management for besieged Wells Fargo in 2017 —according to Portland Business Journal, stated, in 2015, that "the Murdock Trust does not give money to anti-gay or anti-women groups," despite financial disclosures previously published on the Trust's website, and elsewhere."

The highlighted sections above show the problem with this text, where calling the bank "besieged" is unencyclopedic in tone. The way the last sentence is worded "despite financial disclosures" is clearly meant to disparage the Trust's veracity. The claim that the Trust donated to the group in question is not in dispute, and is even referenced. Concluding the quote of Trustee Grubbs with the words "despite their own records" is for all intents and purposes calling the trustee a liar. Also, this editor continues to add a website to the references for this claim, a website which is not a WP:RS.

The message left on this talk page by AHampton shown here and their edit summaries shown here indicate that this editor possibly believes this to be a game. The best we can do here is to document the changes that they make to the page and escalate only as needed. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Interestingly, you did not deign to discuss any of this in response to "3 Jan. 2018 deletions", which was ignored by both of you pinged interested parties. Rather, "Information added by AHampton" later appears, as though there were no previous attempt to address uncalled-for deletions.

The "game" afoot appears to be whitewashing by deletion of collected facts, and the self-interest of the Trustees and their ilk. Otherwise, merely "despite financial disclosures previously published on the Trust's website, and elsewhere" would have been deleted initially by those so interested in this page. That, I could either have let go, as I had previously refrained from fully outlining the Trust's questionable grants– merely looking to add facts and not to fully lambaste –or, I could have provided further detail of those questionable grants, via the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Other deletions appear fully unjustified... financial disclosures are published. Grubbs' Wells-Fargo history is published. Trustees names and professional histories are published. As anyone can see, it is not I, but the Southern Poverty Law Center and, subsequently, news organizations, that revealed the Trust as donating to questionable organizations,, and Grubb as a controversial figure. What purpose does the deletion of correct, collected facts serve, or are unsavory facts not part of your "game?" AHampton (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposed Additions 25 January 2018

I would like to respectfully request a few key additions to the "History" and "Activities" sections of this page.

1. Request adding the total amount of grants made by the Trust to date in the Activities section. This provides context regarding the total amount of funds distributed and a sense of the average size of each grant.

In 2016, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $49 million to nonprofit organizations.[4] and, as of January 2018, has awarded more than $900 million through more than 6,000 grants.

2. Request adding the following data to the Activities section regarding the organizations that have received the most funding from the Trust over time. This information underscores the Trust's funding priorities as well as offers context around some of the Trust's historic partnerships. Preemptively, I do wish to acknowledge that the sources cited for this fact are the Murdock Trust website. While I understand that the expectation is to cite 2nd and 3rd party sources, this data is 100% valid and can be verified through public, printed reports and federal filing information. I would also note that the Trust's grant archive was considered an acceptable resource to support a statement in the Criticism section and so I trust that it will be considered just as useful here.

To date, the organizations to receive the most funding from the Murdock Trust since its inception include: Oregon Health & Science University / Oregon Graduate Institute ($34,123,289), University of Washington ($21,237,560), Washington State University ($15,654,205), Montana State University - Bozeman ($14,550,700), Oregon State University ($10,509,992), George Fox University ($10,223,580), Young Life ($9,902,520), Seattle Pacific University ($9,897,004), University of Portland ($9,844,961), and University of Oregon ($9,517,950). In addition to grant making, the Murdock Trust hosts ...

3. Insert the following into the History section. This provides context around the leadership of the Trust.

After the death of Tektronix co-founder Melvin Jack Murdock, the origins of the trust began with a $90 million bequest from his estate to a charitable foundation which later became the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust.[1][2] The Murdock Trust is overseen by Executive Director, Steve Moore, and a board of three trustees, Jeff Grubb, Jeff Pinneo, and John Castles. Previous trustees include Paul L. Boley, James B. Castles, Walter P. Dyke, Lynwood Swanson, and Dr. Neal O. Thorpe.

4. Insert the following into the History section. This speaks to the Trust's physical office location, as well as to investments made into the downtown Vancouver area.

The Murdock Trust has announced plans to move to a new location in downtown Vancouver, Wa, in 2018. The Trust was the first tenant to sign on to occupy space in the $1.5 billion waterfront development project and also awarded a grant to the Parks Foundation of Clark County to help fund construction of a water feature in the new Vancouver Waterfront Park.

ColbyReade (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

Reply 25-JAN-2018

Y Partially implemented

1. The list of individual donations was not added, per §7 and to a lesser degree §4 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY
2. The information on the new executive director was added.
3. The information about the Trust's future plans for moving weren't added, per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL

Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

I appreciate your prompt review of this. Can you help me understand two points ...

1. Can you help me understand the distinction regarding lists? I understand the goal to not turn Wikipedia into a directory of unimportant listings. In the criticism section of this page, there are two lists comprised of about seven organizations which the Trust has been criticized for funding. But including the top groups to receive funding from the Trust is not considered acceptable? Is the issue that too many groups were included in the list I submitted but a shorter version with three or four groups (and no dollar amounts) would have been more acceptable (e.g. "some of the groups receiving the most funding from the Trust since its inception include X, Y, and Z)? Appreciate the clarification here for my future reference.
2. Can you help me understand why the Trust's future plans are not appropriate to be included? I understand not wanting to provide speculation, however in this case the Trust's move is not a speculative topic. Agreements have been signed and the ongoing partnership between the Trust and the development has been repeatedly documented in local news outlets which appears (to my reading at least) to fit the parameters of the Wikipedia guidelines. Again, just trying to understand the distinction for future reference.

Much appreciated. ColbyReade (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply 27-JAN-2018

1. You are correct that the list existing in the criticism section whilst not anywhere else in the article was a double standard. The list has been removed.
2. On the matter of the Trust's signing of a lease agreement, I don't believe this to be notable just yet. Despite the example above, it must be remembered that notability is not a level playing field, and agreements signed one day can be broken the next. Since Wikipedia has no deadline, we can afford to take a wait and see position. If anything, waiting helps to provide us with historical perspective. Edits written about events today do not have this, and editors should not pretend to have a crystal ball that informs them of these things. The place to use a crystal ball is outside of the article, in order to gain historical perspective by asking yourself if the signing of a lease agreement will be historically significant 10 years from now. If this is in doubt, it's best to wait.
   

Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

Appreciate your feedback here. For context regarding the move to the waterfront, a lot of people believe this move will have historical significance for the city of Vancouver because of the economic and development impact the new facilities will bring to the area. That being said, I hear your point and am fine waiting to revisit this at least until the Trust has officially moved into its new office space.

ColbyReade (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition requested - History Section

Request adding the following data point to the History section to clarify the total amount of funds distributed by the Murdock Trust over time.

After the death of Tektronix co-founder Melvin Jack Murdock, the origins of the trust began with a $90 million bequest from his estate to a charitable foundation which later became the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust.[1][2] As of January 2018, the Murdock Trust has awarded more than $900 million through more than 6,000 grants.

ColbyReade (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

References

 Done An infobox with the associated info has been added. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

3 July 2018 - Requested Update

Disbursements US$ 90051 million

Respectfully request that the sidebar box on this article which lists "Disbursements US$ 900 million" be revised to say "Disbursements US$ 951 million" as recently disclosed by the Murdock Trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColbyReade (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 03-JUL-2018

Approved

 spintendo  22:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request - 26 April 2019

I would like to respectfully request a small amendment to the Criticism section of this page, inserting the following sentence:

Trustee Jeff Grubb responded by stating that "the Murdock Trust does not give money to anti-gay or anti-women groups."[13] The foundation has stated that grants to the Alliance Defending Freedom were in support of policies that allow college students to fairly and safely express First Amendment rights on campuses and not for work related to North Carolina's Transgender bathroom legislation.

Reasoning for this edit: The Wikipedia article as it currently sits states that the Murdock Trust made a grant to the Alliance Defending Freedom which has been labeled an anti-lgbtq organization by some groups. The implication is that the Murdock Trust supports anti-lgbtq activity through this funding.

Media outlets (citation included above) have reported the fact that the Murdock Trust grant to ADF was made strictly in support of ADF's work to help colleges and universities define policies regarding first amendment expression on campus.

In the world of philanthropy, some foundations provide "general support" grants where funds are provided to be used at the discretion of the nonprofit recipient (and the argument could be made that by funding an organization you are supporting all of their efforts equally) and other foundations provide "project specific" grants where funds are provided only for the use of a specific project or program (and while you may disagree with some work the organization pursues, you are willing to provide support to the work that you do agree with and only that work). Some foundations do a mix of both types of grants. The Murdock Trust has publicly stated through all of its grant application materials that it only makes grants tied to specific projects and requires documentation to verify that said funds were used for their defined purpose. While the initial misunderstanding is completely understandable, clarifying what was actually funded is important context for the broader issue of the Murdock Trust's priorities

Thank you in advance for consideration

ColbyReade (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

Reply 26-APR-2019

The Wikipedia article as it currently sits states that the Murdock Trust made a grant to the Alliance Defending Freedom which has been labeled an anti-lgbtq organization by some groups. The grant to ADF is not, nor has it ever been, labeled as "anti-LGBTQ". As I stated 15 months ago, the article merely states that money was given to ADF, and that ADF is described as anti-LGBTQ. The article contains no other claims in this respect. Further explanations of what the money was given for are not necessary, because no claims are made concerning that aspect. The two components are: (a) money was given to ADF; (b) ADF is described as anti-LGBTQ. The only way these could be false is if (a) money was not given to ADF, or (b) ADF has not been described as anti-LGBTQ. Please advise which of these is incorrect.  Spintendo  18:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes

@Spintendo:

Thanks as always for your clear feedback. I did not mean to unnecessarily hammer on this point or disregard your previous feedback. Speaking respectfully, the issue of this grant has been publicly misrepresented and created confusion through third-parties and so it’s important that the public have all the facts relevant to the situation. I hear your reasoning that “two facts are stated but those two facts do not necessarily lead the reader to a conclusion” but the more I think about it the more I have to respectfully disagree. In short because (1) I believe the current version of the piece DOES create an anti-LGBTQ insinuation (which I elaborate on below) and (2) because the current version of the article does not adequately represent both sides of the criticism (which I also elaborate on below)

(1) In a section on “Criticism” it is noted that the Murdock Trust has been criticized for funding political groups. The article verifies that multiple grants were made to ADF. The article states that ADF has been considered anti-LGBTQ by some. The article states that the Murdock Trust has denied funding anti-LGBTQ organizations.

If the Murdock Trust is purely being criticized for funding political organizations (as opposed to organizations that do not actively engage in political matters), then the specific work of ADF is not relevant. The only relevant fact is that they work in politics. For example, “the Murdock Trust has faced criticism for funding political groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom.”

By stating that some view ADF as anti-LGBTQ, the article moves into the insinuation that “The Murdock Trust has faced criticism for funding political groups that work towards a SPECIFIC agenda (in this case an anti-lgbtq agenda).” In other words, the Murdock Trust is not facing criticism for funding groups that deal in political matters per se, they are criticized for funding groups who take specific positions on political matters. Because the agenda referenced is anti-LGBTQ, it’s a direct insinuation that the Murdock Trust is criticized for supporting an anti-LGBTQ agenda.

If the latter is deemed the necessary inclusion in this article then I believe it leaves a legitimate question for readers: “The Murdock trust made a grant to this group that some have labeled anti-LGBTQ, how can they say they don’t fund anti-LGBTQ groups?” The answer, as previously noted in our discussion, is that Murdock Trust funds were directed to a specific project unrelated to efforts that some might label as anti-LGBTQ. That statement, clarifying where the funds were directed and used, is the direct counter to the implied criticism.

(2) As stated previously, while the Jeff Grubb quote does respond to the criticism, I believe it creates confusion. “This organization has been labeled by some as anti-LGBTQ, how can the Murdock Trust say they don’t fund anti-LGBTQ organizations?" A more direct response explaining the purpose and nature of the grants would be, in my opinion, more appropriate. If the concern is that this section becomes too lopsided in defense of the Trust or too lengthy with both this statement and the Jeff Grubb quote, I am fine with deleting the Jeff Grubb quote and only including this statement so the article reads:

The Alliance Defending Freedom has been described as an anti-LGBTQ organization and was designated a hate group in February 2017 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[12] Trustee Jeff Grubb responded by stating that "the Murdock Trust does not give money to anti-gay or anti-women groups."[13]The foundation has stated that grants to the Alliance Defending Freedom were in support of policies that allow college students to fairly and safely express First Amendment rights on campuses in the Pacific Northwest and not for work related to North Carolina's Transgender bathroom legislation.

I hope that helps clarify my request. Again, I submit this respectfully for consideration.

ColbyReade (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

"This organization has been labeled by some as anti-LGBTQ, how can the Murdock Trust say they don’t fund anti-LGBTQ organizations?" I'm not sure who is asking this question, or that questions such as this are even capable of being answered in the first place. In this case, the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts surrounding a grant given out as part of the Foundation's work (a grant which has generated public discourse and notable mentions in sources). Beyond presenting those facts, which the article does, it's left to the reader to decide for themselves what those fact mean, or what they entail. Going out of the way to discuss other issues surrounding the grant which may or may not be brought up in the minds of readers — such as the grant's relatedness or non-relatedness to transgender bathroom legislation, or TBL (which is not mentioned in the article) — seems to have persuasion (as opposed to preventative persuasion) as its motivation for being placed there, in that it wishes to persuade readers into having pro-foundation ideas concerning the grant not being related to TBL. It was my understanding that preventative persuasion is what's being done in the article — as evidenced by the avoidance of mentions as to why ADF would be believed as anti-LGBTQ. Going out of the way to describe the grant as not being related to TBL would only be necessary if the article mentioned TBL in the first place. We can see the balanced nature of the article as it now stands:

	Claim
↓-ANTI-↓	Grant given to ADF	↓-PRO-↓
"ADF anti-LGBTQ"	←BALANCED→	"Not anti-LGBTQ" (quote)

As you can see above, the claim that a grant was given to ADF is given supporting items: one can be described as "anti-foundation" (that ADF is believed to be anti-LGBTQ) and one that can be described as "pro-foundation" (the quote from the foundation representative that they do not support anti-LGBTQ funding). These two items balance each other out. If the additional claim regarding TBL is added, this would unbalance the article, as shown below:

	Claim
↓-ANTI-↓	Grant given to ADF	↓-PRO-↓
"ADF anti-LGBTQ"	UNBALANCED→	"Not anti-LGBTQ" (quote)
		"Not TBL related"

The foundation giving money to ADF does indeed raise a conundrum: how can the foundation be described as anti-LGBTQ while giving money to ADF. But the article ought not try solving it through additional claims and explanations which in the end, only go so far in explaining the foundation's reasoning - reasons which ultimately lay beyond reach to anyone outside of the foundation's decision-making apparatus.

Notes

Regards,  Spintendo  13:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

I do see your perspective and the goal you are trying to achieve in ensuring balance. I do not want to give the impression that I am trying to steer this article towards being persuasive one direction or the other. I do want to be sure that all relevant facts are presented as briefly as possible (which, I gather, is also your goal as well). As you note "the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts surrounding a grant given out as part of the Foundation's work (a grant which has generated public discourse and notable mentions in sources)." From my perspective the relevant facts are: Some view ADF as anti-LGBTQ based on some of its work. MT has been criticized for funding ADF. MT made a grant to ADF related to their first amendment defense work, not work considered anti-LGBTQ and the MT has publicly stated it does not fund anti-LGBTQ groups. These facts are documented in third party sources. You are correct that the wording regarding "not related to TBL" was not included in the source I provided which was my error. However, the true nature of the grant has been included in two sources (included below).

The Alliance Defending Freedom has been described as an anti-LGBTQ organization and was designated a hate group in February 2017 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[12] The foundation has stated that grants to the Alliance Defending Freedom were in support of policies that allow college students to fairly and safely express First Amendment rights on campuses in the Pacific Northwest and Trustee Jeff Grubb has stated that "the Murdock Trust does not give money to anti-gay or anti-women groups.".

To your note about "who is asking the question 'how can MT claim to not be anti-LGBTQ when they are supporting a group labeled by some as anti-LGBTQ?'" I would say the reality that the question exists is in some of the articles cited in this piece. For example, the Willamette Week piece directly references "an anti-LGBTQ history." I COMPLETELY agree that Wikipedia is not the place to try to persuade anyone that a group is for or against any particular issue. However, I do believe that Wikipedia has a responsibility to present all of the relevant facts so the reader can determine for themselves the weight of the criticism. In this case "a foundation has been criticized for funding a group labeled by some as anti-LGBTQ. The grant in question was not for work considered anti-LGBTQ and the organization has publicly said it does not support anti-LGBTQ work." Now it is up to the reader to decide if the criticism is warranted. For example, is it acceptable to fund a group some label anti-LGBTQ in any way, regardless of the project? Some would say yes, some would say no.

That all being said, my goal is not to belabor this point or bog down the process over a single line. While I do feel strongly that including this fact is reasonable and relevant to the article, if your impartial read on this situation is that including this line unreasonably sways the article then I will accept that and consider the matter closed.

As always, I do appreciate your thoughtful and clear feedback and openness to discussion.

ColbyReade (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

I appreciate your feedback and see your point about the spirit in which the grant to ADF was being given as different from that expressed by an anti-LGBTQ sentiment. The question then becomes the following: To what degree should the actions and actors involved in one part of ADF be shared with other elements of ADF? If one part ADF is noted by some as being anti-LGBTQ, should the other parts/actors/actions of ADF live in their shadow? Is it fair or right that the actions of a portion of ADF are able to influence public opinion of the organization as a whole? I believe that those questions are naturally raised when one considers the mitigating circumstances you've offered in your edit request. ADF has been viewed as anti-LGBTQ. Exactly which of its actions caused that view? Determining the answers to that and the other questions raised here would require access to more information than we currenly have at our disposal, including:

1. Who the planners of the so-called anti-LGBTQ actions at ADF were
2. How many of ADF's employees were involved in those actions? Were they the same as those carrying out the Trust-funded "noble" work concerning first amendment rights?
3. Exactly how the Trust's grants involving students and first amendment rights were effected, including, what it was about that funding and the funding's outcomes which preclude it from being seen as anti-LGBTQ in nature.

 Spintendo  19:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

I see what you are getting at but remain in disagreement on a few key points.

The question “How much should the actions of one group working on one project within an organization reflect upon or color the efforts of another” is fair and one that should be considered heavily. (As a side note, this is an issue that my organization wrestles with consistently and one that is facing significant challenge in civic discourse … if we disagree on one point, can we find common ground to collaborate on a different issue or can we only work with groups or individuals who perfectly align with all of our values? The nuances of working towards common ground are central to our work which is why I am so passionate about ensuring a distinction surrounding the projects the Murdock Trust supports and does not support). When you pose this question of how one group’s work can color another’s within an organization, I feel that you are assuming a point of clarification that does not actually exist in the article as it is currently written.

If the article was phrased "the Alliance Defending Freedom, a political organization that has faced criticism from some groups that label some of its efforts anti-LGBTQ," then the reader is fully informed that ADF works on multiple projects, some have been labeled anti-LGBTQ and can understand that MT funds may or may not have been directed to those initiatives.

This is not a perfect analogy, but I think it illustrates the point: Enterprise Rental Car is known as a company to visit if you need temporary access to a car or truck while on vacation. If someone were to say "Enterprise Rental Cars" you would think "they offer rental cars" and that's it. If you were shopping for a car to purchase, you would not think of Enterprise. In fact, Enterprise also sells used vehicles which few people realize because of their previous marketing/branding. In the current writing of this article, ADF is being "branded" solely as "an anti-LGBTQ organization" so the reader has no reason to think that some of their work may not be tied to efforts that are not related to the LGBTQ community. I don't believe we need to lay out the entire history of ADF in this article, but given the impact of the anti-LGBTQ label, it's only reasonable to provide a bit of context around the work in question and specify that ADF also does work that has not been labeled anti-LGBTQ.

I disagree with the perspective that we raise substantial questions that cannot be answered here by pointing out that “ADF has been labeled by some as anti-LGBTQ because of actions of certain team members working on a specific project HOWEVER MT dollars were directed to other projects.” The articles used to support the argument made by some that ADF is anti-LGBTQ cite the organization's legal efforts in the North Carolina bathroom legislation as their primary evidence and the most pressing concern. There is no mention that ADF is involved in other, unrelated projects.

Furthermore, as we seek for balance in this piece, the Wikipedia article relies on statements from multiple groups, including the NWAP and the SPLC to frame the ADF as anti-LGBTQ (and the MT as anti-lgbtq by proxy). This is counter-balanced by a single statement from one member of the Murdock Trust staff regarding the foundation’s stance on funding anti-LGBTQ efforts. Balancing an article of this sort is next to impossible given the nuance involved, but I believe there is a clear imbalance when multiple voices are used to support one side of an argument and only one voice is used to balance the other regardless of the physical word count on either side of the argument. Providing a phrase that clarifies where MT funds were directed presents a much more balanced view: “These groups feel ADF is anti-lgbtq because they support these efforts. The MT does not support anti-LGBTQ efforts and in the case of ADF, funds were directed to other work.”

Again, I know this may feel like a rather minor point in the grand scheme, but we live in a time where nuance and clarity matter. As a reference tool, Wikipedia should not be a place of persuasion, but readers should be able to see all relevant facts on a subject. In the quest for "balance" in this piece, critics of the Murdock Trust have been able to insinuate that the Trust supports anti-LGBTQ work and has provided funds to a "hate group." It is not unreasonable to balance those two pieces with a statement that the MT does not support anti-lgbtq projects and to clarify where the funds were specifically directed.

Submitted respectfully as always,

ColbyReade (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

Updates requested - 2 July 2019

Request an update to the "disbursements" section.

US$ 951 million 1 billion

Request insertion into the History section

The Murdock Trust moved into a new office space as the first anchor tenant of the new Vancouver Waterfront Development in December 2018.

For reference, the Vancouver Waterfront is a significant economic development in the city across the river from Portland, OR. The Murdock Trust's agreement to sign a lease in 2015 was critical to the development attracting additional tenants and actually being able to break ground.

ColbyReade (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)COlbyReade

References

Reply 03-JUL-2019

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. Y The cumulative amount has been updated.
2. N The information regarding the Trust's occupying a new lease was not added, as the economic development of the Vancouver Waterfront area is not the purpose of the article. The claim that The Murdock Trust's agreement to sign a lease in 2015 was critical to the development attracting additional tenants and actually being able to break ground is not referenced by independent information verifying the criticality of the Trust's lease signature.

Regards,  Spintendo  19:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

10 July 2019 Minor Edits

Request an update to the Activities section to reflect more recent annual grantmaking numbers.

In 2016, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $49 million to nonprofit organizations.[7]In 2017, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $57 million in grants to nonprofit organizations.

Request an insert into Activities section. This stat provides context regarding the volume of applications reviewed which is relevant to the overall size and pace of the organization. Similar stats that could also be used would be the total number of grants made (6,718) or the average grant amount ($250,000) which would allow the reader to calculate the grant pace on their own, but we don't want to insert unnecessary data to the page.

The Murdock Trust evaluates approximately 80 grant applications per quarter.

Request an update to the Endowment section to reflect the current endowment of the foundation compared with its starting assets. This is relevant as it speaks to the total amount the Trust must make in grants per year (a percentage of total assets).

Endowment 2019: Approximately $1.3 billion

ColbyReade (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

Reply 12-JUL-2019

  Edit request declined  

1. Delete: "In 2016, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $49 million to nonprofit organizations." Add: "In 2017, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $57 million in grants to nonprofit organizations." If an amount is listed one year, it ought not be deleted in favor of a succeeding year's number. Wikipedia is not an WP:ALMANAC favoring only the most recent figures. The request should take into account both figures. (See also WP:WHIM.)
2. The Murdock Trust evaluates approximately 80 grant applications... It is not clear what is meant by the word evaluates.
3. an update to the Endowment section to reflect the current endowment of the foundation compared with its starting assets. This is relevant as it speaks to the total amount the Trust must make in grants per year (a percentage of total assets) These figures are used to forcast WP:FUTURE actions (i.e., "This is relevant as it speaks to the total amount the Trust must make in grants per year"). While the data may be factual, the way in which the Trust makes use of the data — to glean future requirements — is not pertinent. In its place a general statement could be made about how the Trust uses their "percentage of total assets" to determine future grants. The statement can leave out what the current figures are because the readers are not making this grant determination — the Trust is. Additionally, the |Endowment= parameter appears to only reflect the initial amount added in the 1970's. A question on the infobox organization's talk page two years ago asked to clarify what was meant by the endowment parameter, but unfortunately this question was never answered.

Regards,  Spintendo  12:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

Thanks for the thoughtful review, as always, Spintendo. I am trying my best to ensure that my recommendations adhere to Wikipedia standards, but I'm still not as up-to-speed on the nuances so your notes are appreciated.

Proposed edit one. I will make a note to address this by updating the "disbursements" section moving forward. The reference section on including statistics notes that in some instances, year-over-year stats can/should be included but formatted in a table instead of a list. Do you think a table outlining grants made by year would be a useful inclusion to the page? Or a table outlining total disbursements to the five sectors of service? E.g. X million to arts and culture, Y million to Health, etc.?

Proposed edit two. In the context of this article, "evaluates" means the Trust reviews about 80 grant applications per quarter, approving some for funding and declining others. This is a fairly well understood term in the funding sector and speaks to the total number of applications the foundation reviews in a given year and its overall volume of work. Grant reports published by the Trust also state how many grants are approved per quarter so the reader could use that data to determine the approval rate (I did not include this data point as it's not a "third party reference.") Does this help clarify the statement to support inclusion or is further clarification needed?

Proposed edit three. I am a little confused why the current endowment amount is being held off of the page. If you look at other nonprofit foundation Wikipedia pages (samples included below), it is common to include the original endowment figure as well as the current endowment figure. In addition to serving as a reference to future anticipated disbursements, it also speaks to the current size of the organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._M._Keck_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Broad#Philanthropy_and_civic_engagement

Let me know your thoughts. ColbyReade (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

Thank you for your questions.

1. Proposed edit one: I think a table of this information might work here, especially if the table incorporates information that, when placed altogether, is not found anywhere else. That would make the table here a unique collection of information, which I think is part of Wikipedia's mandate.
2. Proposed edit two: Information on grant proposals which were evaluated but not chosen to be made appears to not have much usefulness here on Wikipedia. The reasoning for why they were not chosen would ostensibly not be included here, which diminishes the information's value.
3. Proposed edit three: As I indicated earlier, the question of what information the |endowment= parameter is exactly meant to convey has not been established with any certainty, or if it has, the location of that establishment (in any location other than the infobox template's talk page) is unknown to myself and the COI editor. Without that establishment, I would be uncomfortable including it here, despite what goes on in other articles on the same topic.

Regards,  Spintendo  06:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

@Spintendo:

Thanks for the response.

1. I will work on putting this together. Some of this data is captured in media reports but much of it is self-reported and published in documents that are submitted to the IRS. In your professional opinion, do you feel this would be acceptable? I know the goal is to always provide third party sources but I would think IRS documentation would be sufficiently "neutral" but I wouldn't want to assume. TO your point, this would be data that is publicly available but not brought together in other resources. Also, would you feel that if we provided this data in this format, providing all 44 years worth would be of use or perhaps just the most recent ten or so years? I feel like a full table of grants made would be useful for reference, but I wouldn't want to inflate the page with tons of data.
2. I hear you. One common question in the nonprofit space is a Foundation's approval rate (e.g., do you approve half of applications? do you approve 90%?). It speaks to vetting process.
3. Appreciate the clarification

ColbyReade (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)ColbYReade

I agree with you that the community would be most likely to agree to a table that showed only the most recent data, and would frown upon a larger table. Information coming from reliable secondary sources is always best. While the IRS data is kept by the IRS, it is still self-reported and may be problematic. However, from what I remember other editors have had no problem with data on companies which originated from the SEC, which I think mirrors the circumstances of information from the IRS, so it might be the case that IRS information would prove acceptable. As far as the foundation's approval rate, if this information is readily available elsewhere (especially on the foundations own webpage) I think that might work against it being included here. The pure mechanics of how the foundation goes about approving a grant I think would already be available from the Foundation in its paperwork which it provides to prospective grantees, and if that's the case, Wikipedia needn't duplicate that information. Regards,  Spintendo  00:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Minor edit - 18 July 2019

Requesting a minor update to the sector and service area under "Activities". Previously, the Trust served four sectors (Arts, Science, Education, Health And Human Services). Recently Health and Human Services were separated into unique categories for a total of five sectors. This revision also removes linking to a Trust-owned reference and points to a neutral, 3rd party per Wikipedia preference.

Based in Vancouver, Washington, the trust funds projects that serve fourfive primary areas: scientific research, arts and culture, education, and health and human services needs to nonprofits that serve the Pacific Northwest, specifically Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington and British Columbia.[6]

ColbyReade (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

Reply 19-JUL-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  06:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

1 August 2019 Proposed Revision

I'd like to propose a slight restructure to one portion of the "Activities" section. The Murdock Trust works in three areas - grantmaking, enrichment programs and convenings. In the current draft of the article, the Trust's convening work is omitted and the grantmaking and enrichment references are separated by a reference to recent annual giving. I am proposing introducing one new phrase that references the Trust's convening work and compiles the three areas of service into a bulleted list. I believe the proposed revision would improve readability of the section and clarify that the Trust works across three different areas without increasing the article's word count or length in any substantial manner. For the purposes of maintaining an accurate record, I have maintained the existing references but augmented with additional 3rd party references that speak to this new piece of information.

Based in Vancouver, Washington, the trust works in three primary areas:

• Grantmaking for projects in the areas of scientific research, arts and culture, education, health and human service needs for nonprofits operating in the Pacific Northwest — specifically Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.
• Training and educational programs for educators, students and nonprofit professionals
• Convening community groups and leaders

funds projects in the areas of scientific research, arts and culture, education, health and human service needs for nonprofits operating in the Pacific Northwest — specifically Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.[1] In 2016, the Murdock Trust awarded approximately $49 million to nonprofit organizations.[6] The Murdock Trust also hosts training and convening programs for educators, students and nonprofits in the Pacific Northwest.[7][8]

One additional note for context. It is common in the philanthropic world for foundations to have defined, high-level funding priorities (e.g. healthcare, education, etc) with more targeted sub-categories for each sector (e.g., high school STEM projects, elementary literacy, post-secondary continuing education, etc). Many foundations provide a complete list of these funding opportunities (sectors and sub categories) on their Wikipedia pages. While the Trust does follow this structure and would be happy to provide a more detailed breakdown, we feel that the proposed revision keeps to the more minimal/efficient tone/approach of the page.

ColbyReade (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

@ColbyReade: Grantmaking, training, and convening are already mentioned in the article; that being said, I am open to discussing how to make the section more readable. But first, it would be helpful to make the edit request itself more readable, by highlighting the additional sources that you propose to add to the article so that they distinctly stand apart from those which are already being used in the article. Please advise. Regards,  Spintendo  19:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

I appreciate your openness to a revision of some kind here that increases clarity. I feel that the language, as written, emphasizes Murdock's grant making with enrichment and convening programs included in a secondary position while, in fact, the Trust divides it's work across those three separate tracks. I'm open to other ideas for how to arrange this content.

I have tried to highlight the added links appropriately in the below. There are not any media placements that speak to all three areas of work and so I wanted to ensure that I provided a couple of 3rd party placements that speak to each area of work. If I've goofed on the formatting or approach, I'm happy as always to revise.

• Grantmaking for projects in the areas of scientific research, arts and culture, education, health and human service needs for nonprofits operating in the Pacific Northwest — specifically Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.
• Training and educational programs for educators, students and nonprofit professionals
• Convening community groups and leaders

ColbyReade (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

Reply 2-AUG-2019

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. N The Stevens and Yorke articles are both clones of a press release from the trust. Neither of these sources are superior to the Hastings source which is currently used. The Hastings source is also a clone of the press release, in that it repeats much of what the trust says in their press release. However, the Hastings piece — because it originates from The Columbian, a journalism source which is not completely focused on the business aspect of the story (as the other two sources are) — also carries information which isn't in the press release. That is what makes it superior to the other two provided/proposed sources. These other two sources need not be utilized.
2. N Another issue is the question of window dressing. Bullet lists can be beneficial when one wants to highlite and organize certain aspects of the text in a way which benefits the reader. However, organizing the information in this section to highlight items which the trust wishes to promote in bullet form, distances that text from the text which the trust does not wish to promote — text which, not coincidentally, is placed immediately under where the proposed bullet list is to be placed. The intent of WP:CSECTION is that items of controversy ought not be separated from the main text. For that reason, the bullet list should not be implemented.
3. Y The text from the bullet list is an improvement in that it flows better than the currently existing text, which places a financial amount claim in the middle of the text, interrupting the flow of text communicating the "three areas". For that reason, I believe that the prose should be changed to reflect that in the proposal, albeit without being placed in bullet format. The Hastings source may continue to be used to reference all of this information. Please note that the text concerning "convening community groups and leaders" was not added. Being placed in bullet form meant that this item was abbreviated. Unlike the other two items which were also abbreviated, those were able to be integrated better into the text. Because it is not clear what is meant by the word "convening" this item could not be integrated as well as the others.

Regards,  Spintendo  15:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

As always, I appreciate the clear explanation regarding your thinking on the proposed edits.

I understand the decision to not implement these edits as a bulleted list. As I originally noted, it was just a suggestion as to improve the flow. Leaving it as prose is fine.

I do take issue with the characterization of the Stevens and Yorke pieces as “clones of a press release.” Both reporters did receive a press release on the news, but also conducted their own, independent interviews and sourcing related to the announcement which is common practice in news coverage and demonstrated in the unique angles presented (all the pieces cover similar facts yet approach the piece with different supporting quotes and different third-party support). The articles likely appear similar given they all cover the same general news, but each piece is unique (for what it’s worth, there are articles at other outlets that were much more direct reflections of the press release that were not cited here … I wanted to focus exclusively on pieces that contained independent reporting). It was my opinion that each author provided some relevant information that was not already covered which is why I linked to them. That said, if you feel that the Hastings piece adequately covers all of the relevant information, then that works.

As a side question for my own future reference, does Wikipedia have a general rule/target for number of sources to support a statement? In other words, is it considered better to provide multiple sources for a statement for the sake of being thorough or fewer for the purposes of brevity/efficiency? Similarly, is it considered ideal to use one source multiple times for the sake of brevity/efficiency or multiple sources throughout an article to demonstrate broader agreement on the facts? For some reason, I thought I read that the goal was to have two/multiple sources but now I am not able to find where I may have read that.

Regarding convenings, the Murdock Trust clearly defines convenings on its website. The Trust provides venues and forums for community members and leaders to come together and discuss important issues, challenges and projects. The Trust is responsible for the physical cost of these discussions as well as managing the invite process and all logistics. The Trust conducts between 30-50 convening events a year for audiences varying in size between 10-500 participants. Using other language for the purposes of this discussion, the Murdock Trust works in three areas: Providing funds for nonprofit projects and initiatives (grantmaking), offering training and educational programs for teachers and nonprofit professionals (enrichment) and assembling groups to discuss important issues, critical challenges and opportunities for collaboration (convenings). You could also look at it is funding, training and evets/conferences. Leaving convenings out of this section is like saying a bank provides savings accounts and home loans (store your money or borrow your money) when they actually provide savings accounts, loans and investment opportunities (store your money, borrow money or grow your money).

Respectfully, I feel that leaving convenings out of this piece leaves it incomplete.

ColbyReade (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

Thank you for your feedback. With regards to sourcing, WP:TOOMANYREFS gives good guidance:

If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability. One common form of citation overkill is to cite multiple reprintings of the same content in different publications — such as several different newspapers reprinting the same wire service article, or a newspaper or magazine article getting picked up by a news aggregator — as if they constituted distinct citations. Such duplicated citations may be piled up as multiple references for the same fact or they may be split up as distinct footnotes for different pieces of content.

This type of overkill should be resolved by merging all of the citations into a single one and stripping unhelpful repetitions — when possible, the retained citation should be the originator of the content rather than a reprinter or aggregator, but if this is not possible (e.g. some wire service articles) then retain the most reliable and widely distributed available reprinter (for example, if the same article has been linked to both The New York Times and The Palookaville Herald, then The New York Times should be retained as the citation link.)

With regards to convenings, this was left out because a better explantion, such as the one you've just provided, did not accompany the original proposal. The best time for explanations of content which may prove challenging to understand is at the time the request is made. Of course, supplemental explantions can always be made after the fact. That there may be a delay in posting the information to the article owing to the later-provided explanation is a fact of physics which cannot be surmounted without the use of a time machine. Fortunately here, the delay was not too long, and the information on convenings has now been added to the article. Regards,  Spintendo  19:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo:

Thanks Spintendo for both explanations. I didn't think to include a description of convenings because I thought it was a well-understood concept and didn't want to make my request too lengthy (always trying to balance being thorough and emphasizing brevity/efficiency). Will air on the side of over communicating in the future.

ColbyReade (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)ColbyReade

A proposed revision

I have a minor update I would like to propose to this page

Disbursements US$ 57 million (year total, 2018)[1]US$ 66.3 million (year total, 2019)

- There has been previous discussion on this page about striking a balance between providing the most up-to-date information and simply updating the page frequently for the sake of publishing new numbers. I believe this new figure is a relevant replacement given it marks a new record for the Trust in terms of giving (the previous record was set over 2017). It is also the most recent and, therefore, relevant figure for public record. If it would be of benefit to the editorial community here, we would be happy to build and propose a table or list outlining total giving over a certain time frame (e.g. previous ten years)

- Please note that I have provided two media citations for this article. It is not my intent to simply insert extra links on to the page (I am perfectly fine with one of the two being used). In past proposed additions to this page, editors have questioned whether the news sources cited were independent journalism or simply a rework of a media release. Both journalists who are cited here conducted their own, independent follow up research and investigation before publishing their articles.

Submitted respectfully as always...

ColbyReade (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)ColbyReade

References

Reply 27-JAN-2020

  Edit request implemented  

• I don't have any problem updating these figures, but let's not characterize these sources for what they aren't — in both cases, it's clear that Ms. Hastings' and Ms. Yorke's articles have their genesis in this particular press release. Regards,  Spintendo  15:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Update Requested - 6 May 2020

Information to be added or removed: Based in Vancouver, Washington, the trust funds capacity building grantmaking for projects in the areas of scientific research, arts and culture, education, health and human service needs for nonprofits operating in the Pacific Northwest — specifically Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.[2] In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Murdock Trust expanded its grantmaking to include emergency support for nonprofit organizations utilizing an abridged application.

Explanation of issue: I would like to respectfully request the addition of the Trust's COVID-19 pandemic response be added to the "Activities" section of this page.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trust introduced a new grants program, providing emergency funding to nonprofits that differs greatly from the existing capacity building grants program (the existing capacity building program continues to run in tandem with the emergency grants program). This decision was deemed newsworthy enough that multiple trade and business outlets proactively reached out to the Trust to cover the news through independent reporting. The two stories cited above were not pitched by the Trust and were vetted through independent reporting by the author. Additional supporting articles are available, but I want to be respectful of Wikipedia's process and not overload on citations.

References supporting change: Citations are also included above in line

https://www.vbjusa.com/news/top-stories/m-j-murdock-charitable-trust-pivots-their-process-amid-covid-19-pandemic/

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/How-25-Big-Grant-Makers-Are/248678?cid=cpfd_home

ColbyReade (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Edit request implemented   Zoozaz1 00:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Proposed Edit 26.4.2022 (Endowment representation)

I notice that while "Endowment" is represented in the Ford Foundation and Gates Foundation pages as the amount of money currently in their coffers, for this page it is displaying the amount that they started with in 1975. Assumedly all three should be one or the other, right? According to the MJMCT annual report, they had just over $2B in assets.

(apologies if I'm not fully following format here, I haven't actively participated in Wikipedia in many years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whit g (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)