Talk:Americans for Prosperity

Non-partisan?

From everything I've seen, this is a conservative group, aimed at lowering taxes and trade barriers. Does this group actually offer anything to liberals of any sort?

Non-partisan doesn't mean non-ideological. It doesn't even mean that the groups opinions are somehow equidistant between the major parties or political groups in a country. It just means it has no connection to political parties, doesn't endorse or support parties, either doesn't endorse political candidates or its endorsements aren't exclusive to a specific party or parties. twfowler (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right! I bet they don't exclusively endorse GOP candidates and causes. If it stomps like an elephant, has hooves and a trunk, it's gray.....then it's an elephant. "Americans for Prosperity" is definitely partisan. Just because they claim not to be doesn't make it so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.69.130 * - non sequitur note: elephants have padded feet, not hooves, although at the WWF website they call each toe/toenail unit a hoof.(talk) 08:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically when people hear "non partisan" they assume an entity with no ideological bias. AFP has always shown a conservative bias. And furthermore, if they are non-partisan, I ask you this: what Democratic agenda have they supported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.123.69 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Many terms used in this article are subjective and ambiguous. Another comment: to say they are against a government takeover of healthcare implies that this is what the federal government is proposing, when all indicators say this is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.83.97 (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do elephants have hooves? Hmm. Find the answer at https://www.bing.com/search?q=do+elephants+have+hooves%3F&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Rick Snyder resources

From Manuel Moroun and the Political activities of the Koch family ...

• Is Span Plan a Bridge Too Far? Car Makers Seek New Link to Canada, but Some Say Michigan Shouldn't Back It by Joseph B. White in October 10, 2011 Wall Street Journal.
• Detroit Span Owner Keeps Canada Crossing With Koch Aid September 16, 2011 in Bloomberg BusinessWeek by Chris Christoff; regarding "Matty" Manuel Moroun (who beat out Warren Buffett to buy the Ambassador Bridge more than three decades ago) and son's fight against Governor of Michigan Rick Snyder's New International Trade Crossing bridge plans.

See Political activities of the Koch family. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources add, thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

This edit claims that the source is inadequate because it's a blog. This is not the case. Please see WP:NEWSBLOG. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WSJ source and content summary added, thank you! 17:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links

I was shocked to see the NGOLinks template removed. It appears that person didn't know the difference between searches and database lookups. I trust the template will not be again removed, as it includes profiles, charity filings, fact-checking, financial information and media coverage. This is important for government and political transparency. We use CongLinks for legislators, and this is the equivalent for organizations. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see our guiding page on external links. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

AFP and polifact

I dont belive this content is necessary. Polifact is just another news org, and is only marginally different than an opinion site. As such, i dont believe their opinion on AFP deserves special attention here. Bonewah (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

AFP and AFP Foundation – clarification needed

The article section about AFP consisting of two entities has been tagged cn. In looking at CharityNavigator, only the foundation comes up. CharityWatch has listings for the two entities. Each listing has different classifications. Each listing has the same link to the AFP website. – S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think CharityNavigator and CharityWatch are basically primary source reprints, and like IMDB and other similar consolidators of such data they are not good RS. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional well-referenced content has been added to the "structure" and "funding" subtopics clarifying the distinction between the AFP and the AFP Foundation. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Tea Party

I see that there is an Discretionary Santions alert for this article at the top now (related to the Tea Party Movement). I'm sure there is a connection to the Tea Party, perhaps even a really strong one, but there isn't anything about it in the actual article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, there is a category link at the bottom of the article page (Category:Tea Party) but there isn't anything in the body of the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny that, huh? No mention of the tpm in the WP article on the flagship org of the tpm. WP is funny that way sometimes. Are you considering deleting the cat? Hugh (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think so. I seem to recall that this is an organization involved in the tea party. I am not sure it is the flagship but I do think it is deep in there. We should find some refs for its participtation, I think. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I was able to quickly find and add some high-quality reliable source references that made the obvious tpm/AFP relationship explicit. I was able to find them quickly by going through the edit history and looking for large, red, negative deletions. Hugh (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, well done. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Direct quotations

It seems to me that we are overusing the direct quotations to the point where this is beginning to look like a newspaper or magazine piece rather than an encyclopedia article. See some tips at Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations. What do others think, and perhaps interested editors might decide to remove some of the direct quotes they have added? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and comments. I've removed one quote, combined two, paraphrased one that was not a good direct quote, and moved another to where it is more relevant. Hugh (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead

I invite interested editors to take a look at the article as it has developed and to write a draft WP:Lead for discussion here. The current one does not hit all the bases. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your engagement. I agree the lede is less than optimal. I'm wiki-slothing away at the body. I would identify among the to-dos better coverage of right-to-work, in Michigan in particular, and expansion of the policy section, including refs to AFP op-eds in major outlets and AFP activities. The lede needs work but can we work together on the body for a bit longer? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is better to write the body and then draft the lead to reflect what the body says. I am putting a Construction tag at the top, and whenever an editor envisions a stretch of continuous work ahead, he or she should top it with an In use tag. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. This article will never be done but I can't see any more major restructuring or expansion. Thank you for holding off on everyone's favorite part, the lede, for a few weeks. Please feel free to take a stab at a lede. May I suggest we collaborate in situ in article space if it is just us and workshop on the talk page if there is wider interest in collaborating. I think we have a decent summary of reliable sources with some decent topic sentences in subsections which will facilitate a good lede WP:CREATELEAD. I ask that we please try to avoid citations in the lede. If anyone has a source that might help with the lede, please try to integrate it with the body first. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Great start, thanks. Let's try for a lede in Wikipedia voice. Let's see if we can agree on a great 1st sentence, 1st paragraph and great lede. Ambitious, maybe. AFP does not get to write their own lede, nor does FactCheck or anyone else, that's our job. No quotes from AFP website in lede. I asked for support from collaborators on the basic idea of no new material in the lede, so there is no need for citations in the lede. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not a new organization, it has over a decade of very eventful history. We have plenty of things the subject has done to summarize in the lede. The organization's goals, their own self-declared goals or as interpreted by another (FactCheck), are appropriate in the article, but at this late stage, not in the lede, at least not directly, but maybe indirectly by letting the facts of their history a speak WP:Let the facts speak for themselves. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's more than OK to repeat or paraphrase stuff from the body in the lede. For now I'm going to restore the "overview' section and leave the lede alone. Please copy or paraphrase content from the body to the lede rather than move content and refs from the body to lede. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not subscribe to your approach; nor do I subscribe to WP:CREATELEAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nor do I. The essay (WP:CREATELEAD), I find, was unhelpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, how do you create ledes? May I ask, can you be more specific about your issues with Wikipedia essay WP:CREATELEAD? Hugh (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The essay was quite thorough. Very thoughtful. Seems to follow WP guidelines almost perfectly. I believe Hugh should write up a lead based on its principles and post it in articlespace. If anybody objects to it, we can talk about it here and maybe improve it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Although I might suggest holding off on the lead until the rest of the article is set. Personally, I haven't been able to look at it from a distance because I have been so busy making fussy little edits to get rid of direct quotes and tighten up sentences, etc. I wouldn't mind somebody looking at the big picture to see if the piece is actually organized in a logical way. I would not accept moving anything from the body to the lead because the lead, as has been noted, should simply sum up what is said in the body. Moving info from one place to another within the article might be a good idea if anything is definitely out of order. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I subscribe to WP:LEAD, which is a Wikipedia guideline and reflects the consensus of the community, rather than WP:CREATELEAD, which reflects the thoughts of a single editor. WP:LEADCITE describes how citations may be put in the lead section. WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis describes the extent to which a lead's emphasis and content may differ from the body. A hard-and-fast rule that content may not be moved from the body to the lead is arbitrary, formalistic, contrary to WP:LEAD, and in some cases leads to a more poorly written article. In this case, we have both a lead section and a section entitled "Overview," which is bizarre and redundant in light of the fact that a lead section is an overview. (It's right there in the second and third sentences of WP:LEAD.) The contents of the "Overview" section should either be moved into the lead or deleted. Finally, from a process standpoint, I object to having Hugh write up an entirely new lead to be discussed at talk. Changes should be made incrementally in the article space to facilitate BRD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Thank you for your recent edits. Thanks for your careful read. Please make another pass at the body. I think the body is looking well. Thank you for your support on the lede. Sigh, I thought this might be straightforward, but it rarely is, is it? Silly me. There was wisdom in the suggestion of talk page drafting. I will put together a few sentences. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Thank you for your feedback. On your suggestion I have move content and refs from the overview section to where they fit better. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is one of the most influential conservative political advocacy groups in the United States. AFP was founded in 2004 by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries and remains the Koch’s primary political operation. After the inauguration of President Barack Obama, AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force. AFP helped defeat climate change regulation and organized significant opposition to Obama administration initiatives including the economic stimulus and health care reform. AFP opposed the Affordable Care Act and advocated its repeal and opposed the expansion of Medicare. AFP played a key role in the achievement of the 2010 Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. AFP opposed raising the minimum wage and advocated for right to work laws and for limits on the collective bargaining rights of unions. AFP was a major producer of political television advertising. Other key AFP methods included mailings, canvassing, web publishing, online petitions, legislator scoring, and themed bus tours and hot air balloons. AFP was cited by Obama and others as a politically active non-profit lacking transparency.

This seems to me like a reasonable start at summarizing the main points of the article. Probably a bit short yet. Lede sentence as per my good colleague DrFleischman. Comments? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead should be broken up into multiple paragraphs. I suggest three. Typically for political advocacy groups, the first paragraph includes a description of the organization's ideology and stated mission. The second paragraph can describe AFP's specific policy positions and accomplishments. A third paragraph can address AFP's organization and operations, including the Kochs' role, methods, and possibly transparency issues. The proposed sentence on transparency doesn't appear neutral, but that can be addressed separately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the notable aspects of the subject. The subject's own statement of its mission belongs in the article but not in the lede. This subject is not notable for its own mission statement. The subject does not get to write its own lede. The notable aspects of this organization are exactly what it has done. The subject of this article is defined by what it has done, not by what it says about itself. This organization is unique in many ways. This organization is not a think tank and the lede should not present it as one. It is a political organization that works in the streets and in elections. Its policy positions are a distant secondary to its activities. That this organization is actualizing on a coherent political philosophy is just one of several viewpoints on this organization, other viewpoints include that it is implementing opposition to Obama and another is it is implementing the Koch's agenda, and other viewpoints, and our lede should not favor one viewpoint. The Koch's role is one of the single most important aspects of the notability of the subject of this article, and belongs in the first sentence, or, failing that, in the second, as here, but certainly not in a subsequent paragraph. The founding date is best in the first sentence, but failing that certainly very early, as here, and while we're on the topic of the founding we need to mention the highly notable actors. The tension between the views of the subject of this article between grassroots vs. special interest dominants reliable sources, as does the extent of its political activities with respect to its operation as a non-for-profit that does not disclose its contributors; of course this needs to be covered in the lede. Hugh (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm evidently not going to get through to you. Just post your lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a draft of a lead as described by User:DrFleischman, either on this Talk page maybe first posted in Articlespace as WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Or a new one to be proposed by User:HughD. Or – wait a minute - was that your proposed lead in the rather thick indented paragraph above, Hugh? If so, I invite you to trim out the repetitions (AFP, for example) by using pronouns and move it to a new section below, where it would stand out without all the discussion we had just above. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see revised draft, below. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Just read through this conversation about the lead and wanted to contribute. Per BeenAroundAWhile's request I have taken a look at the lead and also feel that it does not "hit all the bases." A lead is supposed to be a "summary of an article's most important aspects," per WP:LEAD. I don't feel that this lead does this successfully, as it goes into too much detail and discusses things that do not represent the "majority view" in a concise manner. According to WP:UNDUE, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." This lead gives undue weight to a minority perspective. I have noticed that part of the lead has been previously deleted for this exact reason. It would be interesting to see what other users' opinions are on this matter? Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Per BeenAroundAWhile's request" May I ask what form that request took? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It was not in any formal matter, however they simply stated above "I invite interested editors to take a look at the article." Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail

We are getting too much detail in the article. For example, it isn't necessary to tell what is wrong or right about individual television commercials unless that fact has a serious effect on the organization. Not only is it a stress on the reader, but it is also a stress on any editor who comes along and has to read it all and check the sources. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your edits and engagement. The article is looking better & better. I agree coverage of the Holmes ad was way heavy. I inherited it. I might have made it a little longer in trying to make it more neutral. Thanks for taking the scalpel to it. But no coverage at all of it is too light, I restored one short sentence with a wikilink. Many of our readers may know of this subject only through their tv ads. Whatever else you say about AFP, their over-the-top tv ads get rs coverage! If you are checking sources I would be grateful if you had time to re-paraphrase if you see something too close. Hugh (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I may have made it worse by expanding some of the voter fraud allegations-related stuff. But I think it reflects the sources used better now. Is it too much text in general? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and edits. According to our page size tool, this article is at Prose size (text only): 26 kB (4151 words) "readable prose size." According to our DYK check tool, this article is at Prose size (text only): 27058 characters (4151 words) "readable prose size." This article is well within our page size guidelines WP:SIZERULE. There is no justification in page size guidelines at this time for the deletion of content and references. In any case, deleting details from the funding section is an unusual place to start trimming. I am planning to further improve and expand this article, in the course of which I plan to add additional detail. Please comment if you have reasonable concerns about specific areas of undue weight such as the Holmes ad. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but what is unusual about it? It just seemed to be a bit list-y. This is clearly not a complete list of donors, so how is the notability of individual contributions judged when deciding what is to be added to the list? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Donors are added haphazardly. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. No need to apologize. No, it is not a complete list of donors. The donors added reflect reliable sources as per WP:DUE. Donors are not added haphazardly. All of the donors included were considered noteworthy by noteworthy reliable sources. We will never have a complete list. Fortunately, by WP policy a complete list is not required before we can mention any. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no rhyme or reason that the donors are included here. The slightest mention in RS is enough to get a donor added here, whether it makes sense in the context of an encyclopedia article. The concept of proper weight has yet to be addressed in the context of the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, to clarify the potential issue as I see it, is that WP is, after all, an encyclopedia and not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of stats. We should be able to demonstrate why particular stats are of lasting encyclopedic interest. Since we can't provide a complete list, more comprehensive year-by-year funding/expenditure totals can be found elsewhere in other sources which inherently provide better informational value for interested individuals. Particularly without any context or explanation, more-or-less randomly selected details are of limited value in an encyclopedic entry. This certainly doesn't apply only to the funding section, but I thought it a useful mindset to help begin pruning some of the "excessive details" we're talking about here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is not long WP:SIZERULE. Please do not delete content with an edit summary saying the page is too long. I am actively working on expanding this article. It is going to get longer. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I shortened the "Events" section. The details about the two events can be placed in the articles about the events, not here in an article about the organization that sponsored them. And it didn't seem to me that we needed subheaders for this section. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"The details about the two events can be placed in the articles about the events" Thank you for your edits. I agree the two events probably did not justify their own, one-paragraph, few sentence subsections. The two events do not have their own articles. It is a normal and natural process that related articles split off of other articles as content accumulates. This article is a long way away from the point at which splits for article size are necessary. Meanwhile, it is inappropriate to delete relevant content from this article justified by a judgement that the content would be better in a different article that does not exist, and your deletions actually frustrate the possibility of the two events achieving independent notability. You are more than welcome to begin articles on the Defending the Dream Summit and RightsOnline, and then embrace summary style here. Even then, a certain level of coverage of those two topics will always be appropriate in this article. Thank you again for your continued collaboration. Hugh (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, collaborators are reminded, as you probably already know, "Americans for Prosperity" is the lowest-level, most detailed article on its subject. Currently, it is not the parent article of any sub-articles. And at a prose size of 30 kB "readable prose size" this article is well below the point at which splits are generally considered WP:AVOIDSPLIT. When we delete detailed content from this article, we may be deleting it from the encyclopedia if there is nowhere else for it to go. "Too detailed here" is an editorial position we are more familiar with in discussing the pros & cons between a parent article and a sub-article WP:SUMMARY, rather than between our encyclopedia and noteworthy reliable sources. WP:DETAIL reminds us "some readers need a lot of details. " May I respectfully suggest our discussion on content issues be framed within our due/undue weight policy. Specific comments on the due weight of a specific item of content are of course welcome in a separate thread. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How does the WP:NOT policy fit into your framework? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I'm happy to compare and contrast my understanding of policy with yours, but I think my talk page might be a more appropriate venue for that. Again, may I ask, here on this article talk page, if you have specific concerns about specific content in this article, please start a separate thread. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask for you to compare and contrast anyone's understanding of policy. I asked how WP:NOT fits into your own comment immediately above, in this very discussion, styled in response to other editors' position of "too detailed here." Given that most of the "too detailed here" complaints on this talk page are based on WP:NOT, a discussion of that policy seems... not only appropriate but necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:FOC WP:TPYES Kindly start a separate thread, identifying specific content in this article of concern, and specifically explain how in your view it fails to conform with WP:NOT. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

How does WP:FOC not apply to this comment then? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy our always stimulating comparison of notes on our mutual understanding of policy and guideline, I must express again that I really tend to think the best use of this talk page is discussion of specific article content of specific concern. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I will state some of my concerns with "detail" in he article.

1. First there is the addition of the line about API "largest US trade association in the oil and gas industry" This is unref'd, unsourced and entirely uneccessary in that API is wiki-linked.
2. Second we include State Farm Insurance as a founder of AFP (I've now corrected that to the AFP Foundation, per ref). This is accurate as far as it goes but is either too much or too little information. That is to say the ref'd article lists a dozen founding donors (to the foundation) and we only identify one, and not the largest or the amounts.
3. Third we identify Reynolds as a "major" corporate donor (which is ref'd), but then include additional information later in the section stating it was not a major donor and only gave small amounts (which is also ref'd). The ref for "major" gives no contribution amount, just the glancing "major" designation. The other ref says $50,000 and characterizes it as "just a fraction" of the AFP's $33 million expended that year.
4. Then there is an entire large paragraph not about funding but about issue advocacy tax policy and proposed changes to the policy which I'm not sure belongs in a "funding section". It should probably be in its own section.

These are my initial thoughts. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

4 Done. Great suggestion, thanks! Hugh (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

1 Thank you for the careful read and the suggestion. We are asked to provide a few brief words of definition on the first mention of a new term under WP:LINKSTYLE. Our readers should not have to click on a link to understand the meaning of a sentence. The American Petroleum Institute is not a household word in America let alone the rest of world. Thanks again for your time and for checking verification. Please do the rest of the article besides funding. Hugh (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

3 Done. Major is gone. We will err on the side of caution perhaps. Thank you again for your careful read of the article and sources. Please keep going. Hugh (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

2 Good catch, thanks. I added three more smaller donors mention along with State Farm that are in both the refs. The same refs mention other donors but if I read the refs correct the donors are from the CSE era. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You inspired another sweep through the funding section. I've re-read the refs and checked ver and looked for extraneous refs. I think we are in good shape with respect to verifiability and due weight. I resisted but this section reads much better without a dollar amount for each and every donation. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerned editors are respectfully requested to express their concerns regarding due weight of specific article content on this talk page, in a new section, with reference to specific policy or guideline. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's all take this pledge

I am vowing to follow the guideline at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars. I hope I succeed. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I looked at this for guidance: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Resolving ownership issues. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015 article size checkpoint

According to our page size tool, the article is Prose size (text only): 33 kB (5119 words) "readable prose size." This is roughly 2/3 of our page size rule of thumb of where article length begins to be a concern WP:PAGESIZE. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the only editor discussing WP:PAGESIZE is you. I could be mistaken, but my understanding is the concerns discussed above in Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Too much detail were about WP:NOT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In one of my Edit summaries I complained that the article was getting to be "too long." I guess that is a complaint about its size. It is a bit shorter now and, considering the topic, at this point it seems OK, athough I am sure some more could be taken out or tightened up. It takes more time to write short than it does to write long. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Of course comments on due weight in proportion to reliable sources are welcome, please be specific and kindly start a separate thread as an issue distinct from article size. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a blind spot for WP:NOT. I don't know why you won't acknowledge that policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your frank feedback on my understanding of policy. Here on this article talk page, may I please ask you to be more specific, in separate threads, with your article content concerns, aside from article hatting and policy citing? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have, but you've been belittling and dismissing my concerns, as well as similar concerns by others, which makes it difficult to get anything done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft lead

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is one of the most influential conservative political advocacy groups in the United States. Founded in 2004 by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, AFP remains the Koch’s primary political operation. After the inauguration of President Barack Obama, AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force. AFP organized significant opposition to Obama administration initiatives, including helping to defeat climate change regulation, protesting the economic stimulus, opposing the Affordable Care Act and advocating its repeal, and opposing the expansion of Medicare. The organization played a key role in the achievement of the 2010 Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. AFP opposed raising the minimum wage and advocated for right to work laws and for limits on the collective bargaining rights of unions. AFP was a major producer and purchaser of political television advertising. Other important methods included mailings, canvassing, web publishing, online petitions, legislator scoring, and themed bus tours and hot air balloons. Their scope of operations, multiple simultaneous active campaigns at both state and national levels, has been compared to a political party. AFP was cited by Obama and others as a politically active non-profit lacking transparency.

Comments? More interested in coverage of the most notable aspects of the subject in the body rather than in punctuation and format at this point. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

---

I edited the above and I agree that it should replace the lead now on the article. The proposed lead, about the same size as the one just above but in two paragraphs, would be:

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), founded in 2004, is one of the most influential conservative political-advocacy groups in the United States. Established by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch, AFP is the Kochs' primary political operation.

After the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2008, AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force. It organized significant opposition to administration initiatives, including climate-change regulation, the Affordable Care Act, an economic-stimulus package and the expansion of Medicare. It played a key role in the Republican electoral victory for the House of Representatives in 2010. It opposed raising the federal minimum wage, and it advocated for right-to-work laws and for limits on labor unions' collective-bargaining rights. AFP was a major producer and purchaser of political television advertising. It also engaged in mailings, canvassing, Internet publishing, online petitions and vote-scoring of legislators. It sponsored themed political bus tours and the floating of hot-air balloons bearing messages of advocacy. AFP's range of operations and its multiple simultaneous active campaigns at state and national levels have drawn comparison to those of a political party. AFP was cited by Obama and others as a politically active non-profit that lacks transparency. Its supporters say it is engaged in political free speech.

I see no problem in using this as the lead and working on it as the article changes over time. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. The 2-graph version is better, thanks. My only quibble is with the last few words, I might change "engaged in political free speech" to "educating voters on issues," for which we have multiple refs and a good quote. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments? Hugh (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of things I'm not crazy about, but it can be posted and then we can tinker with it more easily. One specific thing I'd say is that the last two sentences are vacuous and should be sharpened (see WP:ENEMY) or removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Fleischman, I'm not crazy about it. Especially the last two sentences. I suggest not posting it til its worked out though. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Thank you both for your recent article space edits to the lede. Please reconsider collaborating with us here on talk. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your support on the draft lead. With this consensus I will add all but the last 2 sentences to article space, and I hope to hear from my colleagues on those last 2 sentences here in talk space. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was saddened by your refusal to collaborate in talk space. In good faith, I added the draft lede minus the last two sentences with which you expressed reservations. After an hour or so in article space, you deleted two additional sentences, beyond those you expressed concern with here in talk, two sentences available above to you on the talk page for your review and comment. I did not understand content deletion to be subsumed in your definition of "tinker." I am asked by policy to assume you are not baiting for an edit war, but I find myself wondering. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course the subject of this article is notable for many significant innovations in methods, innovations copiously documented in reliable sources and in the body of the article. We could start with the use of themed bus tours, not unique but highly characteristic of the subject of this article. Then there's the hot air balloon motif, almost a trademark. The subject of this article rose to prominence in part by its early adoption of the internet, and even trained other including tea party members on the political uses of the internet. Notification to legislators of legislation included on their score card and the implication of well-funded primaring was key to their success. All of which in the body and in RS. All of which you might have objected to earlier but seem to prefer article space drama. Hugh (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course the subject of this article's well-documented highly notable dominant role in producing and paying for the airing of television political advertising belongs in the lede. Hugh (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No baiting here. I consider your comments highly combative and I respectfully ask that you knock it off and start editing in a more collaborate manner that tries to accommodate the views and approaches of your colleagues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Revised draft of last two sentences of lede

Their scope of operations, in terms of national and state as well as breadth of issues, staff size, number of donors, and budgets have drawn comparisons to those of a traditional political party. Obama and others raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency of AFP with respect to the extent of thier political activities while operating as a tax-exempt non-profit, in contrast with political action committees.

Comments? Hugh (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral and teasing (see WP:LEAD). There is nothing in this proposed language suggestive of noteworthiness beyond what would one would expect about any other high profile conservative advocacy group. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

How would you put it? Specifically what do you consider non-neutral? teasing? We are in the lede now, the issue notability, not noteworthiness; noteworthiness "weight" is the body. Here we are summarizing the body. These statements in the lede summarize material in the body. What statement would you add next to summarize the largest swath of the body that is not already summarized in the lede? Hugh (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As I already said, I would remove this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What statement would you next add to the lede to summarize the largest swath of the body that is not already summarized in the lede? Hugh (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a look in detail, but my answer might end up being "no statement." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry not to hear back from you. My answer to the question, what is the most notable aspect of this subject not yet in the lede? would be a pithy one-sentence summary of the copious material in the body, a sentence which attempts to capture the dynamic tension between the extent of the subject of this article's political activity, while operating as a non-profit charity, with the transparency due a charity. I am planning to try again to add such a statement. Since you have deleted multiple attempts by your colleagues to add previous drafts, I am asking you for your co-operation in improving the lede and inviting you to please draft your own brief summarization of this content from the body of the article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been slammed off-wiki. I need to dig through those sources. I'll get to it soon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Block

This was a Wisconsin story. I recall it vividly. It encompassed almost a week of articles, perhaps 5 days. It involved a former employee of AFP. Former. AFP's involvement was appaerntly limited to having paid travel expenses of the former employee to meetings in DC. This is a Herman Cain article story (possibly, it may even be undue there), it is certainly WP:UNDUE here. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, as an aside, Block is famous for his Cain campaign video, possibly the worst presidential ad ever. Google it on youtube. Unbelievable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and collaboration. I've restored a paragraph blanking that included multiple reliable source references including Time magazine, The Washington Post, and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal. Please suggest an alternative summarization of these reliable sources rather than paragraph blank. Our readers may well come to this article to understand these controversial transactions. I agree in terms of word count the converage is perhaps a bit much, but a certain amount of background is necessary to understand AFP's explanation. For the record coverage of this episode pre-dates my personal involvement in editing this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I will restore the refs and edit to emphasis AFP's role and de-emphasis Block's role per your comments. Please look at it and discuss before paragraph blanking and deleting reliable sources. That no federal prison time resulted from this episode is irrelevant; coverage in major news outlets means it is due weight here. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest not. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this paragraph included to show that AFP can get scammed or rolled like other people? I really don't see the value in the inclusion here. A former employee creates charities with names curiously close to AFP, apparently siphons off major donors away from AFP, then send bills AFP for some of his travel. Is this encyclopedic? I wouldn't say so. It was essentially a one day story at the time, one that centered on Herman Cain's campaign manager Mark Block. This is entirely peripheral to AFP. Add it to the Cain article perhaps, it would fit better there. It clearly doesn't here. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me go further, this organization has been around for at least a decade. Given traditional high-level turnover rate of campaign staff there are probably (50 states x 10 years x ~5 state director turnover rate) as many as 2,500 former AFD state Exec Directors running around. Are we going to add articles on each one that gets mentioned in RS? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am deeply disheartened at your line of reasoning here, which I recognize as reductio ad absurdum. I am sad because I think you understand WP:DUE better than this. This content is not a camel's nose that will inevitably result in the ruination of the encyclopedia. If you are aware of the activities of AFP staff coverage in Time magazine or the Washington Post or other major newspapers not already in the article, please share. I am asked by policy to assume you are not baiting me into an edit war. Hugh (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Too late, you are both already in an edit war. Please stop, both of you. And Hugh, please try harder to assume good faith and to understand Capitalismojo's arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree Block is not important here, although he is as you say a colorful character for sure. Also, the charity established by a state dir of AFP while a state dir of AFP is here only by way of background. Reliable sources document charges of AFP using an intermediary to fund the Cain campaign, and AFP's explanation. This episode is difficult to explain without mentioning the alleged intermediary charity at least indirectly, and the fact that the alleged intermediary was created by an AFP state dir is part of the noteworthiness of this episode. It is not a one-day story. Yes, by the time this came to light he was no longer state dir, but he was at the time he set up the alleged intermediary, and oh, btw, he left to join Cain's campaign, not included here. The value here to our readers is that a reader, coming across one of the early articles regarding the controversy, comes to WP to get the real story, and sees AFP's explanation. When Time and WaPo and the Mil J-S cover a story our hand is more or less forced, regardless of our personal assessment of the net net impact on the world. I have reduced the weight on your concerns, including removing direct reference and wl to Block. If you can suggest an alternative summarization of the sources that manages to tell the story clearly, please do so, but paragraph and rs blanking is not an option. Hugh (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Capitalismojo that this story is of limited relevance to our AFP article. It seems to be more about Block, Prosperity USA, and Cain. There may be some AFP angle to this story that merits inclusion, but so far I haven't seen it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Block is gone. Direct reference to Block and the wikilink to Block was not included in the content revised as per your concerns, leaving an episode involving alleged contributions by the subject of this article to a presidential political campaign in conlfict with their status as a charity, an episode manifest in multiple, well-formatted, available online, reliable sources. Yet it was deleted by Capitalismojo in his 2nd revert. Kindly suggest an alternative summarization of the multiple, well-formatted, available online, reliable sources which Capitalismojo deleted. Thank you in advance for your collaboration. Hugh (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing Block doesn't solve the problem. I'm not aware of any summarization that would make this story sufficiently relevant to this article to merit its inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not your awareness that makes a summarization of this story relevant here, it's the coverage in multiple highly noteworthy and highly reliable international news sources. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not everything revolves around the number of reliable sources. Please unplug your ears and listen to the feedback of your fellow editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this material is not relevant in this article. This person was a former employee. The argument that because RS refs mention that he was a former employee that somehow makes it important in an encyclopedia article here doesn't wash. This is WP:NOT what should be included. Random trivia is unhelpful to the reader. Include this information at the Mark Block or Herman Cain articles if you think they needs additional material. Not here. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

AFP-intermediary-Cain transactions

Multiple, well-formatted, readily-available online, highly noteworthy and highly reliable references were deleted. Sources include Time, The Washington Post, and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal. The associated content is a neutral, three-sentence summary of the sources. The content concerns an episode regarding allegations of the subject of this article contributing to a presidential campaign via an intermediary, in conflict with their status as tax exempt. The content included the response of the subject of this article to the allegations. Collaborators are respectfully asked for an alternative summarization of the sources rather than paragraph blanking and the deletion of noteworthy, international reliable sources. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is disruptive. This subject is already being addressed in the discussion directly above. Your use of please and thank you is nothing but lipstick. You want to include this content, then you come up with a formulation and a basis for its inclusion that satisfies the consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources:

• Bice, Daniel (October 30, 2011). "State firm's cash to Herman Cain may breach federal campaign, tax laws". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved March 23, 2015. one document says the group was to be paid $5,000 for the costs associated with Cain's speech in September 2010 to the conservative Right Nation rally in Chicago, an event that the records say Cain attended at the request of Americans for Prosperity. The Cain campaign later used a segment from that speech in a campaign ad.
• Benjamin, Mark (November 1, 2011). "The Other Cain Scandal: Campaign Transactions May Have Broken Federal Law". Time. Retrieved March 23, 2015. After his ban was up, Block returned to politics as the state director of the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy organization founded by billionaires David and Charles Koch. It was through AFP that Block met Cain
• Eggen, Dan (October 31, 2011). "Herman Cain campaign's financial ties to Wisconsin charity questioned". Washington Post. Retrieved March 23, 2015. Prosperity USA footed the bill for about $40,000 worth of iPads, chartered airplanes and other expenses as Cain's campaign got off the ground early this year
• Stone, Peter H. (November 3, 2011). "Koch-related group is reviewing financial transactions with Cain aide's charity". Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved March 23, 2015. The conservative grassroots goliath, Americans for Prosperity, has confirmed that it had financial transactions with at least one charity in Wisconsin founded by Mark Block, chief of staff for Herman Cain's presidential campaign
• McCormack, John (November 9, 2011). "Americans for Prosperity: Our Reimbursements to Herman Cain Were Legal". Weekly Standard. Retrieved March 23, 2015. The results of AFP's review, according to AFP's Executive Vice President Tracy Henke, show that the organization legitimately reimbursed Cain and a staffer for four flights that occurred prior to the launch of his presidential campaign.

Proposed summarization:

AFP had financial transactions with a tax-exempt charity that allegedly made contributions to the Herman Cain presidential campaign which were not included in the Cain campaign's disclosures. Tax-exempt charities are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns, and a charity may not use intermediaries to contribute to political campaigns. AFP said the transactions were reimbursements of travel expenses, incurred before Cain launched his campaign, for Cain and a staff person to attend AFP or AFP Foundation events.

Comments? Hugh (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me as not particularly relevant and very non-neutral. None of these stories suggested AFP did anything wrong, but this presentation suggests the opposite. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Revised proposed summarization:

AFP had financial transactions with a tax-exempt charity that allegedly made contributions to the Herman Cain presidential campaign. AFP said the transactions were reimbursements of travel expenses, incurred before Cain launched his campaign, for Cain and a staff person to attend AFP or AFP Foundation events.

Comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This formulation demonstrates how tangential AFP's role in this story really was. Trivial content not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge "Influence" and "Tea Party" sections?

I note the one-paragraph influence section consists solely of assessments from reliable sources of the subject's leadership role within the tea party movement. We have a principle of facts 1st, then interpretation/reaction/analysis. I think the influence section would fit well as a last paragraph in the tea party section. Comments? Hugh (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to implement this, let's see how it looks. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Explain the diff between AFP and the Foundation?

We need a decent explanation of the difference between these two related orgs. The current text doesn't do it. I hope somebody can comply because I can't. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but most political organizations have paired 501(c)(3) [educational charity] and 501(c)(4) [advocating lobbying] organizations. Can someone verify this and explain it better? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

We do have sources, but it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to use them to explain the difference, as we don't have a single source which does so. Perhaps some of the sections under "Finance" (which are completely irrelevant to "finance") could be moved to a description, if we're careful not to have synthesis by adjacency. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is a decent summary of reliable sources on the differences between AFP and the Foundation, such as they are. Perhaps the most significant difference is the IRS filing status, which has significant implications for the allowable activities and fund-raising. We can further highlight these differences by moving the filing status up to where we have individual subsections for AFP and the AFP Foundation. I'll try and we can look at it. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Due weight of property rights and patent reforms advocacy activities

Here is the specific article content with the least support in reliable sources:

AFP advocates for the protection of property rights and patent reform.

Supported only by two self-published sources WP:SPS on the official website of the subject of this article, no supporting secondary sources regarding advocacy activities for noteworthiness. Comments? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Hugh (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Change to "says it advocates . . . ." Then I believe we could use its website as a source. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

done, thanks Hugh (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete. "Property rights" and "patent reform" are too vague to be useful, and possibly non-neutral, and expanding the content based solely on these self-published sources would be undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I agree, I don't see how to expand these two points since I don't know of any rs describing their activities in support of them. The subject of this article has many, many essays on its website. I don't think it is due, absent noteworthy support activity. Hugh (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Caricatures

@BeenAroundAWhile: Thank you again for your collaboration and the image. May I ask the relationship between the image and the article? The AFP sponsored an "informal gathering," not strictly a debate format, and not sanctioned by the GOP, in April, 2011 in NH. Paul and Gingrich did not participate but are in the image. I think the image you added may be associated with a later debate. A few months later, the GOP sponsored a GOP-sanctioned debate in NH. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if you delete them as not relevant. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

New discussion about the lead

No one has addressed the lead issue in quite some time. So I am presenting my grievances. This lead is heavily weighted in a way that makes criticisms of the organization appear to be what is most notable. And that is just undue. The organization is most notable for its stated mission and conservative advocacy. The way its written - and I apologize if this is offensive but it describes my view - sounds like how the liberalpedia article would be written. Here is a portion in the lead that I find to be undue:

After the 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama, AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force. It organized significant opposition to Obama administration initiatives such as global warming regulation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the expansion of Medicaid and economic stimulus. It helped turn back "cap and trade," the major environmental proposal of Obama's first term. AFP advocated for limits on the collective bargaining rights of public-sector trade unions and for right-to-work laws, and it opposed raising the federal minimum wage. AFP played an active role in the achievement of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 2010 and in the Senate in 2014.

This paragraph is written in a seemingly negative tone, which hints at a POV. Did the organization oppose all Obama initiatives? Or did it support conservative policies? See how the phrasing is an issue? And this section makes it appear as though the neutral position is one where Americans for Prosperity are the bad guys. That is not neutral per Wikipedia guidelines. Especially given how large the organization is and how many activities it is involved in. Imagine if someone wrote on a Soros-funded organization in the second sentence of the lead that Soros funded parts of the Ferguson protests: Wouldnt editors be rightfully upset? DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand what DaltonCastle is saying. Although all parts of that paragraph are, I think, linked below to reliable sources, we might want to take out some of the detail. I suggest:

AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force and organized significant opposition to Obama administration legislative initiatives. It advocated for limits on collective bargaining by public-sector trade unions and in favor of right-to-work laws, and it opposed raising the federal minimum wage. AFP played an active role in the achievement of Republican majorities in Congress.

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok that does already look greatly improved. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I will leave it to you or somebody else to stick it into the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"No one has addressed the lead issue in quite some time." A week? Hugh (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"So I am presenting my grievances." Please refer specific content and to policy and guideline here on this article talk page rather than personal preferences. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"This lead is heavily weighted in a way that makes criticisms of the organization appear to be what is most notable. And that is just undue." The content you deleted from the lede included several sentences, only one of which summarized a criticism, a criticism of the transparency covered at length in the body of the article and a criticism advanced by multiple notable sources. The lede summarizes the body WP:LEDE. The content you deleted from the lede is neutral. The lede does not mention "bad guys" as you say. Please help us focus on content. Please refrain from hypotheticals on this article talk page. Please refrain from discussing other articles on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"The organization is most notable for its stated mission" The subject of this article is not notable for its mission statement. Do you have reliable sources that the subject of this article is notable for its mission statement? WP:Avoid mission statements The subject of this article has more than a decade of event-filled history. The subjects of articles do not get to write their own lede. The mission statement of the subject of this article is more than adequately summarized in the body and balanced there with a third party assessment of their mission. The mission statement of the subject of this article is not appropriate for the lede. Thank you. Hugh (talk)

Your proposed lede above deletes all mention from the lede of global warming, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the expansion of Medicaid, the economic stimulus, and "cap and trade," all topics which are covered in due weight in the body. The lede summarizes all of the body, as per policy WP:LEDE. Hugh (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Dalton, I'm not sure I agree with everything Hugh wrote above, but I don't see what you're saying about criticisms receiving undue weight. Nothing you included in the blockquote you put in your original post is even suggestive of criticism. There is nothing negative about AFP's successes and policy positions. Half the country would see these well sourced items as positives, not negatives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Too much credit

We seem to be adding a lot of hype to this article. AFP is a large conservative group. Is it the largest? The most important? Is it really the premier conservative group? I doubt it. Can we really give AFP the credit for the tea-party, Republican control of the Senate and House, etc.? They might like to thinks so but that ignores the hundreds or thousands of other groups, some of which have more members, more money, more history. This article is drifting into puffery. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not certain its even the most imprtant tea-party group. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken we have very reliable sourcing for these claims. (I was skeptical at first, until I reviewed the sourcing.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Is it the largest? The most important? Is it really the premier conservative group?" The article does not make any of these claims. Please help focus on content. The article only makes claims much more carefully qualified than you, and those qualified claims are thoroughly referenced to highly reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the refs now too. It is apparently well supported. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I was particularly concerned with the lede statement about AFP being largest 2014 spender on ads. Given what I've read about the leadership pacs, party committees, amd union pacs I found that unlikely. Looking at the ref and material in the body it becomes clear that this figure excludes all the normal committees and is only referring to the "outside groups" spending. I think that might be a little confusing for the lede for a reader. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Thanks you both once again for your careful read of the article and the sources. If you have time and energy please do more. I learned a lot collaborating on this article. PACs and superPACS get all the attention, but a charity outspent the super PACs. I will clarify the lede with a brief in-text definition of "outside groups." Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask for support in removing the article hats and requesting a copy edit pass from WP:GOCE. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, am fine with removing the tags and would welcome a review from the Guild. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletions May 2015

@HughD: Hi! Thank you for being patient. I did not mean to be dismissive earlier, I wanted to convey it would be some time until I got around to this. If that was not clear I do apologize. The information I have since removed I believe was either non-notable, irrelevant, or using primary sources. Yes, I understand that there are times when primary sources can be used for non-controversial details. But that particular piece seemed completely unnecessary; puffery. Also, there were several redundancies that were removed. Also, the opinion piece I removed from the Washington Post was because it was not anything about AFP. It was the newspapers opinion about generic campaign finances, not a hard fact about the organization.

Also, just a heads up, I am going to fall asleep soon so I will be unable to continue any discussion until the morning. Hope this cleared some of it up. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before deleting content and reliable source references. The "opinion piece" you deleted was identified in-text as a Washington Post editorial. The title of the editorial you deleted the reference to was "Americans for Prosperity's big-bucks attack ads." Of course it is very clear the quote is about the subject of this article. The opinion of the Washington Post editoral board is a noteworthy opinion, particularly on matters of transparency. Many editors and administrators watch this page and several of your fellow editors have gone over the content and references on this page and verified content and passed on due weight and you do not seem to respect that. You are welcome to participate in these discussions. You deleted the subject of this article's report of its own staff size. Stating an approximate staff size in an article on an organization is not "puffery," it is useful to readers in judging the scale of the operation, even if it is sourced to the subject. Your edits are not improvements. Hugh (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please gain consensus on this talk page with your fellow editors before deleting content and reliable source references from this article. May I say again, I hope you will hear, your edits, each and every one of them, are uniformly not improvements to the article. Please refrain from edit warring. Hugh (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You deleted a key clause from the paraphrase of Fang that changes the meaning of content. Did you read the source? What Fang said was that the Obama campaign erred in criticizing the subject of this article instead of the Kochs directly. What you left was Fang said the Obama campaign erred in criticizing the subject of this article. That is not the same thing. Your deletion changed the meaning significantly. Your deletion is not helpful to our readers. The content is less clear after your deletion. Hugh (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Then the entire sentence should be deleted. The article is not about the Kochs and Fang's political opposition to them. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Twice now in the last few hours you have deleted most of the content summarizing reliable sources regarding the Koch funding of the subject of this article. If you were more familiar with reliable sources on the subject of this article, of course you would recognize that the Koch funding of the subject of this article is perhaps the single most notable aspect of the subject of this article. If a reliable source mentions the subject of this article at all, it is almost certain to also mention the Koch funding. If anything, the coverage of the Koch funding of the subject of this article in this article is deficient with respect to coverage in reliable sources. The coverage of Koch funding in this article is reduced, a result of consensus among collaborating editors. Also, you seem oblivious to the distinction the article content made between initial seed funding and ongoing funding, before you hacked it out. The Kochs are both according to RS. Again, your edits are not an improvement. Hugh (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Koch funding of the subject of the article is the most notable subject for the article? First of all, that does not seem right. Thats a POV. And I did not remove all mention. The first sentence I removed was repetitive. One sentence already mentioned Koch foundations, the one I removed just reiterated it. The sentence from the Washington post about percentage was also repetitive. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"One sentence already mentioned Koch foundations" Have you decided that you cannot keep "AFP rec'd funding from the Kochs" out, and if you can't you are bound and determined to make sue that's ALL this article says? Because by policy, coverage in our article is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Your contributions might be more beneficial rather than harmful if you were to call off your crusade and invest the time to become more familiar with the reliable sources on the subject of this article, as some of your colleagues have done. And there is a LOT of RS on AFP & the Kochs. You have a very generous idea of repetitive, apparently any sentence that involves AFP and Koch is a repetition of every other sentence about AFP and the Kochs. Hugh (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your contribution to this article is to delete content related to the Koch funding of the subject of this article, perhaps the single most notable aspect of the subject of this article as reflected in the vast reliable sources. Your content deletion is not an improvement. Why do you want to reduce the article's coverage of the most notable aspect of the subject, coverage already grossly short of due? Hugh (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Three times now in the last few hours you have deleted a brief quote from a Washington Post editorial, first with an edit summary of "POV, not notable," next you tried "undue, & irrelevant," and most recently you tried "original research, undue." The POV is addressed by in-text attribution as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Notability is not a criteria for article content. The quote is highly relevant, in fact it serves as a topic sentence for paragraph about reaction to the lack of transparency of the subject of this article. The quote is highly relevant in showing that it is not just Obama or Democrats who have criticized the transparency of the subject of this article. The paragraph is followed by a much longer paragraph in which not one but several distinct explanations the subject of this article has offered for its non-disclosure are collected and described. The quote provides important balance to the clearly stated position of the subject of this article on its own transparency. If you were more familiar with the reliable sources on the subject of this article, of course you would realize that the lack of transparency is one of the most notable aspects of the subject of this article. If a reliable source mentions the subject of this article, more likely then not it will mention that they do not disclose their funders. If you are not sure of this, note that we have a clause in the article, "AFP does not disclose its funders," in short order an editor could hang several dozen reliable source references to that clause, references drawn only from those already in the article, with no additional research. But that would not improve the article. Again, your edit is not an improvement. The quote is attractive for our encyclopedia as a concise statement of the highly significant POV that the public would benefit from knowing more about the funding. If anything, the coverage in this article of the criticisms of the subject of this article is deficient with respect to the vast coverage in reliable sources. The quote is not OR. If you believe this content is original research, please try defending your position on this talk page. Hugh (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this one. Keeping that portion in makes the rest of it a POV push. We are not here to push the opinion that an organization should disclose it donors. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Another of the most notable aspect of the subject of this article is the dimension of transparency/confidentiality/accountability, another topic grossly underrepresent as compared to vast reliable sources. We are not pushing anything, we are asked to fairly summarizing reliable sources. We are asked to include all significant views. The view of the editorial board on the operation of this org is a significant view. You could do worse than the WaPo quote. If you succeed in deleting this quote you will not like any better what we have to add to repalce it to provide balance to the much longer succeeding paragraph in which AFP case is presented. Again, your content deletion is not an improvement. Please reply, why do you want to reduce the article's coverage of the most notable aspect of the subject, coverage already grossly short of due? Hugh (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The quote in question does not improve the page.The general controversy is already mentioned, but adding this quote alters the entire section. Without it the section, roughly summarized, says "AFP was questioned in regards to its transparency and activities". With the quote that becomes "AFP was questioned in regards to its transparency and activities. The Washington Post says not disclosing is wrong". Its an irrelevant note that could be construed as a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonCastle (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 May 2015‎

Pleas sign your talk apge comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I don't think editors have to abide by anybody's wish to "Please gain consensus before deleting content and reliable source references." Frankly, I prefer WP:BRD as a working principle for creating a viable WP page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Hugh! Been at a barbecue! Just caught up on all this. I have addressed each item underneath the paragraph. Hope this clears up the changes. I will address more in the near future. For the most part, I do believe my edits improve the page since it removes any perceived POV and also non-notable, irrelevant information. Hope this all makes sense and is well received. And in the funding section in particular, dont some of those sentences seem repetitive? How many different ways can we say its been funded by the Kochs? DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Lee Fang

In the "Transparency" section of this article, a quote is used addressing Lee Fang and his recent publication. This information does not come from a “neutral” source nor does it have a “neutral point of view.” I understand that the source is reliable, but the entirety of this Wikipedia article does not represent all views, therefore making it biased. Lee Fang writes specifically for left-leaning news websites such as The Progressive and The Nation. The Progressive has been described as an “American monthly magazine of politics, culture and progressivism with a pronounced liberal perspective.” Lee Fang’s book, titled with a highly left-leaning name, is a book bashing the conservative movement and the right, with specific chapters slandering the AFP.

As previously stated, these may be reliable sources and may be relevant, but WP:NPOV states that all points of view must be proportionately represented. Coming directly from the Wiki policy… “critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources, and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias.” Therefore, this section of information will be deleted as it is violating NPOV. If you want to find other reliable sources with the opposing point of view, then feel free.

In addition, this also violates WP:UNDUE. Neutrality of the article requires that it represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Should information from this author be used? Is this quote notable? Coming from a very biased book, is having information from an author like this applicable and representative of all viewpoints? Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 03:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this material should be deleted but I come at it from a slightly different angle. This opinion is simply not very notable or relevant for this article. Lee Feng is a fairly high-profile journalist but the opinion is much more relevant to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 and United States presidential election, 2012 than it is about AFP. And its relevance to AFP's transparency (or lack thereof) is fleeting at best. In addition it's insider baseball, and there's no RS-based indicia of reliability. This is not an example of a third-party newspaper publishing Feng's opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I, too, agree that this material is not suitable for this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts

I removed two lines that are in direct conflict with quotes from other sources, including the Mayer source also used in the section in question:

In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.” [emphasis mine]

Which version takes precedent? This is, after all, a BLP issue and we should be careful about how we're presenting this. Better to show facts than to report opinions, even if they come from respectable places, no? In what specific ways is this organization being used as the Koch brothers' "primary"/"flagship" political advocacy group? From what I can tell, this conclusion drawn by certain commentators is based on spurious connections which - while certainly plausible - are far from well-established. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither takes precedent. We are asked to summarize all views. This quote is a good contribution, thanks. Hugh (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources (Politico, NY Magazine, Slate, Mother Jones) take precedent. The rule that we must summarize all views applies only to conflicting reliable sources. Statements by the Kochs and AFP spokespeople are not reliable as they have not been fact-checked and are unduly self-serving. It seems noteworthy that the Kochs and AFP have said that they're independent of each other. But this view should not be included unless it is made clear that it is false. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added an additional ref to this quote from a month earlier, might be Mayer's source, might be the same Koch Industries press release going to two outlets. Hugh (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Although two refs report the Koch Industries denial of involvement, we are accurate in our assessment that no reliable source takes up this denial in their editorial voice, and no reliable source defends the claim that the subject of this article is independent of the Koch brothers. Would you support not including this denial from Koch Industries? It is verifiable as a stmt from Koch Industries. I'm comfortable with trusting our readers to understand that the Kochs and Koch Industries are not the same thing. You believe it does not have weight and is self-serving? Thanks for your comments. Hugh (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that both the Kochs and AFP have both asserted that AFP acts independently of the Kochs, but throwing in an additional assertion by Koch Industries seems like overkill to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In direct response to AdventurousSquirrel's concerns, I agree that BLP is implicated, but the sources being cited here (Politico, NY Magazine, Slate, Mother Jones) are very reliable and self-reinforcing. These are not opinions, they are summaries of facts that have been researched by professional journalists and fact-checked by professional editors at reputable organizations. There is no BLP basis for omitting them. That said, I think the way they are presented is too detailed and therefore non-neutral in violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. In this context, "primary" and "flagship" are synonyms, so all of the sources can be collapsed into a single short sentence. And attribution is unnecessary because the sources are reliable and uncontradicted. All we need is a single sentence saying that AFP is the Kochs' primary political operation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, content merged, thank you for the suggestion! Hugh (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks better, thanks for the discussion. I still find it troubling, however, that it isn't demonstrated anywhere how, in what ways, specifically, AFP serves as "the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group". As this is the case, I think the sources of the information you mention may be of interest to readers of this page for various reasons: NY Mag ("New Journalism" magazine, a "literary style...emphasizing 'truth' over 'facts,'"), Slate ("contrarian"), and MoJo (documented "left-leaning" bias). Frankly, I've not seen anyone present any actual evidence supporting this claim. To take the Mayer source as an example, as her major refutation of the quote posted above, she brings up statements from a person named Peggy Venable who "worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994"...if you think that's something, you should compare and contrast the rosters of Wall Street execs and regulatory agencies. Ambitious and successful people, it turns out, often seem to find themselves in many different but related roles in different organizations. I can't say what the case is here, but the presented sources don't do much to establish the existence of a strong connection, or certainly not a controller-controllee-type relationship between the Kochs and the group, so to flatly call the Koch rep's claim "false" seems unfair. Based on what we have now, I would say that the RSs have indirectly implied it is false through their unelaborated statements. But certainly all these RSs obtained this description from elsewhere? What was the basis of that initial source's claim? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what evidence or other basis they had for drawing this conclusion. Whatever evidence they had was reviewed by professional journalists and editors at reputable media outlets. These outlets are all well established as reliable, despite any political bias some of them might have. This is the essence of our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your collaboration. Last week, we added a quote from the Mayer article from a Koch Industries spokesperson denying that Koch Industries directs the activities of the subject of this article (the 1st part of the excerpt from Mayer above). Today I see this quote has been removed and replaced with a quote from a Koch Industries spokesperson denying that Koch Industries or the Koch brothers financially supports "tea parties" (the 2nd part of the excerpt above). Respectfully, I do not see how this edit is an improvement to this article. The latter quote makes no mention of the subject of this article. Koch Industries, the Tea Party Movement, and Political activities of the Koch brothers all have their own articles, any of which would be a better place for the latter quote. Let's relocate this latter quote to Koch Industries, the Tea Party Movement, and Political activities of the Koch brothers and here restore the denial regarding the subject of this article. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I've added the Koch Industries denial of Koch involvement in tea parties to Tea Party Movement and Political activities of the Koch brothers. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"Wisconsin collective bargaining" section too detailed?

I am reverting HughD's removal of the section-level {{overly detailed}} tag on the "Wisconsin collective bargaining" section as I don't think the removal was justified as the tag was added just two days ago, and Hugh didn't ping the tagger BeenAroundAWhile or start a discussion on it. In the spirit of consensus building, I invite the two of you (and others) to discuss the matter and seek common ground. On the merits, my rough take is that this section merits some trimming and consolidation with the "Michigan right-to-work" section into a single section on labor law. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither did the tagger start a discussion. Hugh (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Labor law section implemented, looks good, thanks for the suggestion. Some content and refs from "Wisconsin collective bargaining" relocated. Hugh (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by HughD

I just wanted everyone to be informed of this incident. I did not want to do this but this user is behaving rather hostile at the moment. He and I have been in a dispute over a particular piece of content. He added an edit-war warning on my talk page, I did the same to his. He reported me to the administrators noticeboard for edit wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DaltonCastle_reported_by_User:HughD_.28Result:_.29). Then on his page removed any warnings about edit-warring. I promptly added it back because he is a part of this dispute just as much as I am. He continued to remove this information and then claimed on the noticeboard that I was "retaliating" against him:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664516658&oldid=664496851
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664516785&oldid=664516658
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664521991&oldid=664521571

I then posted a new section on his talk page to ask him to please refrain from this activity until the matter is resolved. He promptly removed this from his page.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664610181&oldid=664609986

I just want to make this known because I fear this user hopes I am sanctioned for edit-warring without himself getting into trouble. Just want to make sure this is well-known and not forgotten. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with this editor.DaltonCastle (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DaltonCastle, many of my edits have been reverted as well by this same user and I also posted on his talk page. Looks like we are in the same boat. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on article content in our comments here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

one of the most influential

I have been reverted, but I want to know, if this peacock phrasing belongs in the lead? According to how many sources? I argue that this opinion does not belong in the lead of the article. Sure, it is sourced in the body of the article, but to give it undue weight in the lead IMHO is not keep with established guidelines and policies.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

1. "Americans for Prosperity". FactCheck.org. October 10, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2015. emerged as one of the most influential conservative issue advocacy groups on the national and state political scene Bykowicz, Julie (February 17, 2015). "Scott Walker Is King of Kochworld". Bloomberg News. Retrieved April 20, 2015. emerged as one of the most influential conservative issue advocacy groups on the national and state political scene
2. Weigel, David (March 1, 2012). "Behind the Cato-Koch Kerfuffle". Slate. Retrieved March 24, 2015. one of the most powerful conservative organizations in electoral politics
3. Bump, Philip (June 19, 2014). "Americans For Prosperity may be America's third-biggest political party". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 22, 2015. the third-largest political party in the United States.
4. more available if you need it

"AFD is a conservative advocacy group," the reverted lede, is a gross understatement. The current lede says "one of." It is not WP:PEACOCK. As WP:PEACOCK explains, plainly summarizing verifiable information is not peacock. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So what if the Koch brothers are connected to the subject of the article. At least the "third-largest" claim can be quoted directly to a Washington Post blogger; however, "one of the most influential" is an opinion, not a fact based statement.

I can quote that it is the opinion of some journalist or blogger that X or Y individual is the "worst president in history", that doesn't mean it should be in the lead sentence of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement in talk space. "So what if the Koch brothers are connected to the subject of the article." The lede does not claim that the subject is "one of the most influential" because of the Kochs. Are you moving on to the 2nd sentence of the lede? A new talk page section might be best for that discussion as you have titled this section "one of the most influential." Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree there is no general consensus in reliable sources on the worst president. I agree "worst" is highly subjective, but evaluations of influence are less so. If enough reliable sources report the same idea, we can include content derived from them in the body of a Wikipedia article and summarize across them in the lede. Here in addition to multiple explicit stmts of "one of the most" in rs, we have ample rs regarding the objective record of accomplishment and the scope of operations along multiple dimensions including geographic, membership, staff, advertising spending, and range of issues. And may I again please point out the "one of" in the current lede which seems like a more than adequate appropriate qualifier for our encyclopedia, no one is claiming AFP is the. ok? Hugh (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, one of the essential functions of the lead section is to explain why the subject is notable. In this case, AFP isn't just notable because it's a conservative group, it's notable because it's one of the most influential conservative groups in the country. This isn't peacock, it's reliably sourced fact. Yes, eyebrow-raising claims require very solid sources, and that's exactly what we have here. Hugh unintentionally omitted

• "Americans for Prosperity". FactCheck.org. October 10, 2011.

FackCheck.org is one of the most reliable sources out there. Add it on top of WaPo, Bloomberg, and Slate, and I have no problem at all with including this content in our opening sentence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The content gives undue weight to the opinion of numerous sources, "most influential" is a value judgement, not a fact statement. If it is to be included, it should be an attributed opinion. IMHO attributed opinions need not be in the first sentence of the lead paragraph. The subject is notable because it meets WP:GNG & WP:ORG, not because some source writers opinions are that the subject is "most influential".

The lead sentence defines scope the scope of this article is an organization by the name Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group.

But I guess I won't convince other editors of this, and this article can devolve into NPOV land. G'day--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just back from Michael Jordan, who is according to WP "an American former professional basketball player." Gulp. Sorry, the edit deleted an important aspect of the subject's notability from the lede in deleting it from the lede sentence. Of course the lede sentence of the article lede is highly proscribed, thanks for the reminder. I will restore the edit and try an accommodation and let's look at it. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the change. "Most influential" is neither an opinion nor a value judgment. It is the type of fact-based assessment that news journalists make every day, and that we rely upon in all of our politics articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, you convinced me. You had a good idea about the lede sentence: scope, thanks. Please read on. Hugh (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for all of us . . .

This barnstar salutes all of us working on this page who are able to do so without completely losing our cool! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail (again)

There is entirely too much reinserted detail about tax laws regarding nonprofits, etc. Recent additions are once again pumping up the article with basically irrelevant information. The piece is again becoming one-sided simply by the large massing of adversely critical information, even if is reliably sourced. I believe we need more editors to look at this piece. I will be posting announcements at WP:WikiProject_Conservatism and WP:WikiProject Politics/Money and politics task force. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"etc." This is not helpful. On this article talk page please help us focus on content by kindly being very specific about any content with which you may have concerns. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"becoming" On this article talk page please help us focus on current content by kindly refraining from commenting what you believe to be the future of the article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please reference specific policy and guideline in your talk page coments. This article is currently Prose size (text only): 35 kB (5488 words) "readable prose size" well below our guideline for when article size becomes a concern. Thank you for your comments. Hugh (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"tax laws regarding nonprofits" One of the most notable aspects of the subject of this article, as manifest in voluminous reliable sources, is the extent of its political activities while operating with the many benefits of a tax-exempt non-profit, including deductibility of contributions and lack of disclosure requirements. We are required to provide sufficient detail such that our article is clear. The subject of every sentence in an article need not be the subject of the article. Of course in this article we are required to provide a brief summary of the context of this notable aspect of this subject. Hugh (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"the large massing of adversely critical information" There is no "large massing of adversely critical information" in this article. This article is neutral and balanced in its coverage. Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"even if is reliably sourced" Coverage in this article is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Everything in this article is reliably sourced; most content has multiple reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that BeenAroundAWhile could be more specific. I also think that Hugh could be more open to feedback. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

On this article talk page please help us focus on content by kindly refraining from personal comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not personal. You could be more open to BeenAroundAWhile's feedback in this particular discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I too agree that this article contains information that is simply not relevant, as well as specific details that do not apply. BeenAroundAWhile, perhaps you could point out some places in the article where you see a problem of relevancy? Then other users can take a look at it as well. (I think reaching out to WikiProject pages is a good idea too.) Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

On this article talk page please help us focus on content by kindly being very specific about any content with which you may have concerns. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This article was developed collaboratively, please see the talk above and the archive. This article is on many watch lists. For all the expressed concern it's odd that no one seems to be able to identify one specific instance of content of concern and the specific relevant policy or guideline. Please understand our policy on canvassing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@HughD by your own admission, this page, as all pages on Wikipedia, is created through collaboration. I therefore ask that you please avoid posturing as holding authority to override every edit on this page. There are issues on the page and, while we thank you for your efforts, you cannot be the sole editor involved. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to DaltonCastle's comment, we are focusing on content here despite several allegations -- that is the whole point of this talk page. We are concerned with the content of the article, therefore are trying to discuss our opinions about it. Yes, there may be a few side discussions here and there, but overall there is a common goal. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Funding

There seems to be an undue amount of attention on this page regarding funding/tax issues. When you look at other articles regarding advocacy groups, there is nowhere near this much attention spent on this issue (e.g. Center for American Progress). While listing the folks who fund this group is pertinent, other than merely listing them (as is done in other articles), appears to be not recognizing WP:UNDUE, and further appears to be the bugaboo of particular editors. Why are the Koch brothers even in the lead of this article? Other than for purely NPOV partisan reasons? Onel5969 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Weight in Wikipedia articles is relative to reliable sources, not to other articles in Wikipedia in a category. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Why are the Koch brothers even in the lead of this article?" Because the Koch brothers are in the body, and the lede summarizes the body. Hugh (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. You can use other articles of similar subjects as examples of what to do and what not to do. Especially when edits create an NPOV issue. This article is about the organization, not the Koch brothers. Mentioning that they are part of the group which funded/funds the organization is appropriate, going on at length about them gives the appearance that an editor (and through that editor, the Wikipedia organization) has an axe to grind with this advocacy group and the Koch brothers. Your second argument is a strawman argument: since we include an NPOV issue in the body of the article, we must make the article even more NPOV by including it in the lead. Why don't we wait for a few more editors to weigh in, so consensus can be reached. Onel5969 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. So much undue weight towards Koch involvement hints at potential WP:COATRACKING. The article is not about the Kochs, its about AFP. Therefore a mention of Koch funding would be appropriate but certainly not how much currently stands. This is one of many issues on the page as it stands. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we get some more opinions on this? Currently only three editors giving opinions. Stands 2 to 1 for trimming. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not voting. It might help you get feedback were you focus on content and identify a very specific item of current content which you believe is non-conformant with our due weight policies, rather than whipping up support for a campaign of "trimming." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's why I haven't done anything yet, would like some more folks to chime in. Onel5969 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the copious, highly detailed information on funding is leading to WP:NPOV problems via WP:UNDUE. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Here on this article talk page please help us all focus on content by identify a very specific item of current content which you believe is inadequately supported by reliable sources. Please help us focus on current article content and kindly refrain from speculating about what you are worried the article might become. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"We're not voting". So Hugh, you actually believe you have authority over the page to override any community consensus? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on article content here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Everybody's focused here, except for you, HughD - your incessant posting of this statement only continues to display your lack of consensus building, and your WP:OWN, and numerous other violations. Onel5969 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

elucidate tags

This template is to be used for "a request for other editors to add further explanation to text that assumes expert understanding of a subject". Wikilinking to another page does not require expert understanding. It simply requires the ability to click the wikilink. The Santelli remarks are elucidated in the same sentence. There was a point on the "Wisconsin Family Action" mention, since there was no link, and there could be no reasonable expectation that a reader could infer the meaning without further context. I've made that adjustment. Onel5969 (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The tags you deleted included in the reason WP:LINKSTYLE, please see, which includes:

1. "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."
2. "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."
3. "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all."

Hugh (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. None of those 3 issues apply in this instance. One example was explained in the text, and company names are not "highly technical", nor do they need to click on the link in order to understand the sentence. In other words, if no link was provided there, the sentence would still make sense, and allow the reader to know that these companies fund this organization. The links are provided for ease of navigation in case the reader wants to know more about those companies. But that isn't necessary to know that they fund this organization. Onel5969 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"The links are provided for ease of navigation in case the reader wants to know more about those companies." No, you missed the whole point of the link style section of our manual of style, it is that a link is NOT sufficient. We are asked to write articles that can be read and understood throughout the English speaking world. Perhaps you know who Rick Santelli is, and what the Bradley Foundation is, and what the American Petroleum Institute is. Good for you. The American Petroleum Institute is not a household word in America, let alone the rest of the world. By what policy or guideline do you deprive our readers of knowing Rick Santelli is a CNBC program host? This article is nowhere near long article guidelines, we can afford a very few words to be clear. A few words can help a reader decide whether or not to click and learn more, no in-text context whatsoever forces them to click to understand the intention of the sentence. Having resigned yourself to the realization that our due weight policy supports the inclusion of the financial support of the Bradley Foundation for the subject of this article, is the next bast thing in your mind to at least make sure our readers have no idea who the Bradley Foundation is, unless they already know? We are explicitly asked to write articles that clearly communicate, even when represented other than hypertext. Hugh (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you miss the point. The fact that Santelli is a CNBC host is not germane to the article. The fact that he potentially coined the term which was subsequently used by the Tea Party is the relevant fact, and that was included in article. The additional information, again is not germane to the article, and is an attempt to flavor the article into a non-neutral stance against this organization. As such they should be deleted. Which I will, and will once again ask you to wait until consensus is reached. Onel5969 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is germane. Whenever a person is mentioned in an article, who that person is is always germane. Of course every word of an article need not be specifically about the subject of this article. We are required to include sufficient context and background that the article is clear. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is undue weight and irrelevant. It appears again and again on this page and throughout its edit history. We really need to trim down much of the page to remove any NPOV issues that arise from much of the content. We are not asking a whole lot here. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to make an issue out of a very few words. This:

AFP received smaller grants in 2012 from tobacco company Reynolds American and in 2010 and 2012 from the American Petroleum Institute.

is not an improvement over:

AFP received smaller grants in 2012 from tobacco company Reynolds American and in 2010 and 2012 from the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. trade association for the oil and natural gas industry.

The clause you deleted "the largest U.S. trade association for the oil and natural gas industry" is taken word for word from the lede of the Wikipedia article American Petroleum Institute. The content you deleted is neutral. If you do not believe the clause is neutral, please take your opinion to Talk:American Petroleum Institute. Please refer to policy and guidelines on this article talk page and kindly refrain from deleting content that you feel has a certain "flavor." Having recognized that our due weight policy supports the inclusion of the financial support of the API for AFP in this article, is the next best thing in your mind to take advantage of the fact that most people do not know who the API is? Is your goal an article that communicates less to our readers? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. While the content is neutral on the API page, here it is an attempt to insert a POV which is not neutral. Please stop attempting to insert NPOV into an article already ripe with NPOV issues. I stated that a brief mention of the funding is warranted, but that this article goes way over the amount that should be included, as an attempt to paint a non-neutral picture of this organization. I've asked you to wait for a consensus, which you seem to have some issue complying with. There are edits you've made which, while I may disagree with their necessity in being included in the article (e.g. mention of the CNBC connection), they do not affect the neutrality of the piece. I'm not sure why you are afraid of the consensus process? Onel5969 (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I note that in the face of explicit manual of style recommendations you have laid off your "a link is enough" tack, which I take as progress, so thank you for that, but you are now attempting an undue weight argument, which is unfounded. Hugh (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The content you deleted is word for word from the very lede SENTENCE of the article American Petroleum Institute. The content you deleted is the single most neutral clause in the entire article. You understand perfectly well that if a reader understands who API is, it changes their comprehension of this subject, but you are incorrect with respect to our manual of style that being less clear is more neutral. Hugh (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"ripe with NPOV issues" This article is not "ripe with NPOV issues." It is a reasonable summary of reliable sources. You are attempting to make the article less clear in order to achieve your personal view of neutrality. Please help us focus on your specific current deletions of content and kindly do not use your personal opinion of the general state of the article to justify your attempts to frustrate clarity and compliance with our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE. Hugh (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, this article is "ripe with NPOV issues". Hugh, there are ways a sentence can be stated that do not draw criticism from almost every other user active on this page. This really is not a major issue to be fighting tooth and nail over. When we blast the page with too much detail about its funding it does lean into NPOV violations. We really should try to reach a consensus here. This page does not belong to any one editor. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your expression of your deeply held personal belief that Wikipedia should honor the subject of this article's desire to keep its funding sources secret and ignore multiple investigative journalism reliable sources is off-topic in this thread on conformance with WP:LINKSTYLE. Please help us focus on task on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not what I said at all. But your undeniable overkill on the page hints at your commitment to turning this into an attack page. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the current content of the article here on this article talk page and kindly refrain for speculating about the motives of your colleagues or speculating about what the article might turn into. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

- Everybody's focused here, except for you, HughD - your incessant posting of this statement only continues to display your lack of consensus building, and your WP:OWN, and numerous other violations. Onel5969 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help us focus on article content here on this article talk page. Other forums are available to you for discussing your editor behavior concerns. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede: add clause to brief summary of legal context of notable controversy

Current lede excerpt:

AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits. As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors. The extent of AFP's political activities while operating as a tax-exempt entity has raised concerns among some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats regarding the transparency of its funding.

Proposed clause addition in bold:

AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits. As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is legally required to limit its political activities, and is not legally required to disclose its donors. The extent of AFP's political activities while operating as a tax-exempt entity has raised concerns among some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats regarding the transparency of its funding.

The dynamic tension between these two operational parameters, set by the subject of this article's chosen IRS filing status, sets up the major controversy that dominates reliable sources on the subject of this article. Both of these legal requirements are essential context for understanding the sentence which follows in the lede, which briefly summarizes the content in the body regarding the disclosure issue. The precise extent of the limits on the political activities is contented, and no claim regarding the extent of the limits is made in the lede in Wikipedia voice, other than that limits exist as a consequence of the filing status. Citing the one legal requirement, "not legally required to disclose," without mentioning the other, "limits on political activities" is non-neutral, cherry-picking of the constraints and does a severe disservice to the clarity of the following sentence. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This does not strike me as an improvement, I have looked at many similar articles at wikipedia and see no such formulation. It is, at the least, undue in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to policy and guidelines in support of your position, not other articles. Please help us focus on this article here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Capitalismojo. Not an improvement. Puts way too much weight on that detail and is potentially WP:COATRACKING DaltonCastle (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The "detail" that they are legally required to limit political activity is undue, but the "detail" that they are not legally required to disclose is not? How is that possible? The heart of the controversy that dominates reliable sources is exactly the extent of their political activity in conjunction with non-disclosure. Would you support removing the current lede content "As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors"? How are you not cherry picking the legal consequences of the chosen filing status of the subject of this article? Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely does not need to have more added, in fact, as per WP:UNDUE, there is an argument that it should be stricken from the lead, and the entire too-detailed discussion in the body of the article trimmed significantly, so as to comply with WP:NPOV. Onel5969 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no "argument" that "the entire too-detailed discussion in the body of the article trimmed significantly" if you are familiar with coverage in reliable sources. Precisely what WP:DUE says is that coverage in a WP article is proportional to coverage in RS. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change. I fear this page is becoming a proxy war for disputes about campaign finance. My read of the sources is that AFP complies with existing IRS rules and regulations regarding tax-exempt public charities, but that a number of critics are bothered by this because they don't like the existing rules and regulations governing tax-emempt public charities. That's their prerogative, but it doesn't mean AFP is breaking any laws or skirting any regulations--it means some people don't care for the current campaign finance/IRS regulatory regime and would like to reform it. This page is not the proper place to air this significant and important dispute. Placing lots of material on the page about this dispute gives the reader the idea that it is somehow AFP's "fault" that there is controversy swirling about the laws governing tax-emempt charities. This is a deep-seated cultural/political dispute that supersedes any one organization. Airing it out here gives a "where there's smoke, there's fire" feeling to the page, leading a casual reader to likely think "gee, there is a lot of controversy here about tax-exempt charities and political spending...AFP must be doing something illegal or wrong." If there are actual legal cases where AFP has been found guilty of breaking IRS laws, we should include that. But I'm just seeing a lot of hemming and hawing with how AFP is seemingly taking advantage of existing laws. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help us focus on the current content of this article here on this article talk page by kindly refraining from injecting your opinion about what the article might become. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the subject of this article is at the heart of a current public debate about the role of tax-exempt non-profits, so-called "outside groups," political advocacy groups that are not political action committees, and the role of disclosure in political speech. This dialectic dominates reliable sources on the subject of this article, and so is covered in the body WP:DUE, and in the lede. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"AFP must be doing something illegal" This comment is unwarranted and unfair to the many editors who have contributed to making very sure the article at no point accuses AFP of anything illegal in Wikipedia voice. Please help us focus on the current content of the article here on this article talk page and refrain from speculating about what a reader might think. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I was comfortable leaving the brief summary of the legal implications of the filing status to the body. If memory serves you added ONE of the implications to the lede. If you were to self-revert your addition to the lede I would be comfortable dropping this proposal. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You added "As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors" to the lede 13:05, 12 June 2015, with the edit summary "Improve neutrality of lede with attribution and reason for criticisms." You added this with no discussion, even though there are collaborative threads on the lede on this talk page. Yes, it's true: AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors. RS says so and the body says so. I don't think it belongs in the lede. It is NOT the "reason for criticisms." There is no controversy around AFP's lack of a legal disclosure requirement. To support in our lede a summary which could be read as "some think AFP should disclose" is a severe misrepresentation of the body of the article and of vast RS. Only from a very pointed point of view could one familiarize themselves with RS on this subject and summarize it as "some wish AFP would disclose." The content we are attempting to summarize here in the lede is the controversy surround the extent of AFP's political activities, while enjoying the benefits of a tax-exempt non-profit, ONE of which is non-disclosure. If we were to mention ONE of the constraints on the operation of AFP flowing from their choice of filing status, the limits on political activity is much more informative in understanding the debate than the lack of a disclosure requirement. I give you credit that you understand this. Your addition to the lede was a cherry-pick of the relevant legal implications of the filing status. Your addition to the lede was not an improvement. We can repair the damage to the lede by expanding the legal implications or leaving them to the body. Hugh (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hugh continues to reference WP:DUE, ignoring one of the key elements: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." That single statement offers four separate ways that an article can be given a non-neutral POV by the inclusion of cited information, many, if not all, of which are in this article. Many of them have been brought up in prior discussions: it includes way too much depth of detail on minor issues (Koch brothers, tax law); in comparison to the rest of the article, there is way too much text devoted to funding; prominence of NPOV statements in the lead, thus giving those subjects prominence. Onel5969 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help us focus in this thread on the above proposed content. This thread is not a general discussion of your interpretation of our neutral point of view pillar or your opinion on the overall neutrality of the article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Every editor so far disagrees with this proposed edit. However, I would like to commend Hugh for bringing it to talk in such a positive manner. This is the way edits are supposed to be discussed and debated in articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to the conservation -- However, I agree with Capitalismojo and DaltonCastle. I don't see how the proposed revision really makes any kinds of improvements. If most editors disagree with the edit, then obviously I don't think it should be implemented into the article. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 23:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement here. Do not add. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So Hugh, with your recent edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&curid=13591341&diff=667448008&oldid=667419508), your reason was cited as "unnecessary, non-neutral, cherry-picked legal implication of filing status".. Do you recognize the inconsistency in your edits then? You have reverted any and all edits that you did not approve of when the information was unnecessary, non-neutral, or cherry-picked. But you do not hesitate to make edits in support of your view using the very same argument. Could you please try to work with the rest of us? DaltonCastle (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this the edit summary you pointedly excerpted? "top: - unnecessary, non-neutral, cherry-picked legal implication of filing status; lede summarizes notability of subject; legal details for body, thanks" The details of the legal implications of the filing status of the category of tax-exempt, non-profit, social welfare, public education organizations in the United States are obviously very highly relevant context in the body of this article, but obviously such details are not what is notable about the subject of this article, and so are inappropriate in the lede. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted Hugh's non-consensus non-npov edits. Not sure what to do with an editor who will not work with the consensus, and who campaigns on other pages in order to gain support. Onel5969 (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is an issue of WP:OWN. I would recommend keeping a close eye on the page to ensure that non-consensus and non-neutral additions don't permanently stay in the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree we should all monitor all articles for conformance to all policies and guidelines. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sooo.... why do you continue to violate policies including WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DUE & WP:UNDUE, and possible WP:NPOV & WP:COATRACKING? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on article content here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Koch Industries is the largest privately held energy company in the US, owned by the founders of the subject of this article

Current content:

The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries.

Supported by multiple, fairly stable highly reliable source references.

Proposed additional clause in bold:

The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the U.S.

Supported by multiple well-formatted, highly reliable references already in the article (no new refs needed):

1. Cohen, Rick (September 15, 2010). "The Starfish and the Tea Party, Part II". Nonprofit Quarterly. Institute for Nonprofit News. Retrieved June 18, 2015. The charitable arm of David Koch, the more overtly and actively libertarian brother of Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the nation, shows up as a significant funder of Americans for Prosperity, though the number here understates its importance to the organization. emphasis added
2. Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 20, 2015. So far in 2010, Koch Industries leads all other energy companies in political contributions, as it has since 2006. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
3. Rutenberg, Jim (October 17, 2014). "How Billionaire Oligarchs Are Becoming Their Own Political Parties". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved March 23, 2015. The environmental impact of the Koch family is not entirely an abstract question. Koch Industries is the second-largest private company in the country, and its holdings include oil refineries, oil-services companies and one of the nation's biggest fertilizer manufacturers.

Obviously the primary industrial arena of the corporation owned by the founders of the subject of this article is highly relevant to this article. Apparently some editors, with a straight face, contend our due weight policy prohibits including in this article even a very few words of significant context informing our readers of the nature of the business of the founders. Please see the Energy and environment section in this articles for an excellent, meticulously referenced treatment of the activities of the subject of this article. The energy industry focus of Koch Industries is clearly manifest in our own Wikipedia article Koch Industries and also in copious reliable source references in this article. Most sources that mention Koch Industries characterize it including energy or oil or both. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact they fund is notable, the depth of coverage is an NPOV issue. Articles such as Center for American Progress, The Heritage Foundation don't include all this detail regarding their funding. This is really part of other discussions already on this page, and is yet another indication of HughD's lack of wanting to develop a consensus and a feeling of ownership over this article. Onel5969 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Excessive detail it seems to me. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure zero is not the appropriate depth of coverage for Koch Industries here in this article. Are we circling back to the "a link is enuf" school of clarity? What would you say we can say about Koch Industries here in this article? Nothing? We can say they funded AFP but we can't say anything about who they are? Seems odd. If nothing else, we need to bring this article into compliance with WP:LINKSTYLE. We need to add a brief, neutral, in-text definition of a newly introduced proper noun, Koch Industries. What would you propose as a brief clause in description of Koch Industries? Do you prefer that readers who know nothing of Koch Industries will not understand this article? Sometimes it seems to me that some of my colleagues, having resigned themselves to the fact that sadly given our due weight policy they cannot keep all mention of Koch Industries out of this article, but since they can't, they are determined to make very sure this article communicates with our readers as little as possible, regardless of weight in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I'm disturbed by your use of the term "a link is enuf." Is it your intention to imply that other editors who disagree with your descriptions of wikilinks are stupid? That we cannot spell? Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is about AFP -- therefore I don't see how details about Koch Industries is necessary. If a reader feels obligated to learn more about Koch Industries, then they have the freedom to do so. However, excessive detail about it does not belong on this page. I'm in agreement with Capitalismojo. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"excessive detail" Yes, this article is about AFP. But as you know, very well, the subject of every sentence in an article need not be the subject of the article. We are asked to provide enough context that the article is clear. Is it your position that merely mentioning what industry Koch Industries is in, is off-topic? You can't be serious. Not one word? There is no relationship between the agenda of AFP and the bottom line of Koch Industries, that's your story? If our readers knew Koch Industries was an energy concern, that would be a violation of our due weight policy? That Koch Industries is an energy company is an "excessive detail"? You have got to be kidding. How about Koch Industries, an energy company? Unfair Koch Industries to coat-rack them on AFP, or unfair to AFP to coat-rack them on Koch Industries? What is your proposal for a brief, in-text cause in definition of Koch Industries on 1st mention? Nothing? Hugh (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"If a reader feels obligated to learn more about Koch Industries, then they have the freedom to do so." Are we circling back to "a link is enuf"? Hugh (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, after your multiple admonitions to other editors to "keep their personal opinions to themselves", you've shared your personal opinion with us: "There is no relationship between the agenda of AFP and the bottom line of Koch Industries, that's your story?" Thank you for clarifying that you are attempting to include information about Koch Industries in this article not to "comply with WP:LINKSTYLE" but because you are of the opinion that there is an important relationship between Koch Industries and the agenda of AFP. Now that we've got your opinion on that matter out on the table, why don't you find some reliable, non-opinion sources that verify this, rather than trying to push your point of view through your "brief, neutral descriptions." This incident is exactly why so many of your fellow editors take issue with your insistence on over-describing wiki-linked terms. It's an easy way to push one's own opinions or agenda, and to include WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Koch Industries is not a household word. Reliable sources even include how one of the owners of Koch Industries enjoys saying that Koch Industries is the biggest company you've never heard of. Personal opinions don't matter, reliable sources do. Every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries includes at least a few words of description, if not more. I know I am expected to assume good faith, but increasingly I find myself wondering if some of my collaborators are determined to write an article that communicates to our readers as little as possible WP:RF. I begin to suspect that depending on our readers to not know what Koch Industries is, is the whole point of the completely untenable position that none is the correct level of detail of coverage of the nature of Koch Industries in this article. Koch Industries needs some context in this article. Kindly suggest an alternative brief, in-text clause in description of Koch Industries appropriate for first mention in this article to bring it in to compliance with our manual of style at WP:LINKSTYLE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"SYNTHESIS" Providing a brief, neutral, in-text definition of a new term on first mention is compliance with our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE; it is not synthesis; please see WP:NOTSYNTH. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"OR" The above proposed clause is not origintal research; it is sourced. Hugh (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"this incident" This is a content dispute, not an "incident." Other venues are available to you to express your concerns regarding the behavior of your fellow editors. Please help us focus on article content here on this article talk page, and please help us focus on the above proposed content in this thread on this article talk apge. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I came here because I saw the discussion at WP:NPOVN. I see the proposal to add the text the largest privately held energy company in the U.S. as a way of asking to provide some background information on the subject. For political organizations with names like "Americans for a Better World" or what not, personally, I always wonder more about where they came from. I tend to think there is no problem with a providing a bit of background/context. Many articles have entire background sections, and I think these sections serve the readership, though they aren't always necessary. Now I don't say that to propose that we create an entire separate background section at this point. I just think this edit makes sense. But perhaps an entire background section is warranted, as I don't see a reason to not have an entire section. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Article Wikiprojects and rating?

Wasnt there a consensus that this article is only tangentially a involved in labor or environmentalism? Found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force#Americans_for_Prosperity_in_scope.3F.

But now... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity&curid=13591472&diff=667532273&oldid=667530945

DaltonCastle (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but...meh. Wikiprojects are free to add tangential articles as far as I am aware. I see the reasoning behind the labor project. I don't see any connection to the environment. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Opposition to cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes is the potential link to the environment project. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the project participants. According to Project guidelines, specifically WP:PROJSCOPE, WikiProjects define their scope. However, having said that, the same guideline further down says, "If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article." Since the discussion on the Labor Project only showed agreement because of the tangential nature of this article, and since there has been no input from the ecological project, and it is also only tangential, I will be removing both these project banners. Onel5969 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure DaltonCastle and Capitalismojo, if you saw my above comments. They can get lost in the deluge of nonsense posted by another editor. Onel5969 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea I did see it, but contrary to any discussion, our friend went ahead and did things his way. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, this article, with so many issues, is NOT B-Class. Also, more importantly, this B rating was given by Hugh himself. Its generally frowned upon for an editor to rate a page they have significantly edited themselves. I would changes this myself, but I have edited the page significantly. Can we rightfully request a re-evaluation here? DaltonCastle (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I am a participant in the WikiProject Organized Labour. I am adding our WikiProject banner. Editors are respectfully reminded:

A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article... - WP:PROJSCOPE

Emphasis in original. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

^This seems like youre stretching the definition here to suit your desires. Did Wikiproject Orgnaized Labour determine this page was under its scope? The scope is undeniably tangential. Forcing this page to be under Organized Labour and Environmentalism suggests a motive to have editors with a particular bias edit this page a certain way. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You're comment Hugh, while correct, is disingenuous, you joined the project on (June 15) and quickly added the tag (within 2 minutes). You failed to get consensus on adding it to the project, until you campaigned for support. Since this is clearly under WP:PROJSCOPE. Due to your actions there, and your continued disruptive behavior here, I would say this should be out unless consensus can be reached here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds

Proposed addition to funding section:

Of the $140M AFP raised in the 2012 election cycle, $44M came from Koch-related funds.

References:

1. Gold, Matea (January 5, 2014). "The players in the Koch-backed $400 million political donor network". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 9, 2015. Americans for Prosperity , the Virginia-based nonprofit that finances grass-roots activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against President Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in the last cycle came from the Koch-linked feeder funds.
2. Gold, Matea (January 5, 2014). "Koch-backed political network, built to shield donors, raised $400 million in 2012 elections". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2015. A key player is Americans for Prosperity, the Virginia-based advocacy organization that finances activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in that election cycle came from Koch-linked feeder funds.
3. "Americans for Prosperity". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. October 10, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2015. In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million — with more than $44 million of that coming from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.

Highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources, including The Washington Post, a newspaper with an international reputation and multiple Pulitzer Prizes for investigative journalism. The funding of the subject of this article is covered extensively in reliable sources. Coverage of the funding of the subject of this article is light relative to coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's true, but "Koch-linked" is a tautology. If a fund donates to AFP, it is automatically linked to the Kochs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you just being cute, Arthur? because that is not in any way a fair summary of The Washington Post's methodology, and so is not helpful. The report calls out three funds central to the report's definition of the network, none of which are AFP: "Most of the funds originated with two groups, the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and TC4 Trust, both of which routed some of the money through a Phoenix-based nonprofit group called the Center to Protect Patient Rights (CPPR)." Hugh (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Revised proposed addition to funding section:

Of the $140M AFP raised in the 2012 election cycle, $44M came from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.

Yes, it is fair. Many of our "reliable" sources are simply verifiably wrong, otherwise. -— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: so we can have a better understanding of how you propose this should fit into the section, what is being demonstrated by the addition of this line? It seems in some ways open-ended or otherwise without a main point. In other words, what is the significance of this statistic? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The above proposed content summarizes multiple, noteworthy, reliable sources on the topic of the ongoing funding of the subject of this article. Hugh (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the above is yet another attempt to reintroduce a discussion which has been brought forward several times before and consensus has already been reached on. The fact that HughD does not agree with that consensus and is currently attempting to WP:FORUMSHOP, only highlights his lack of intent to abide by a consensus. Onel5969 (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede section

Currently, our lede section ends with "The extent of AFP's political activities while operating as a tax-exempt entity has raised concerns among some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats regarding the transparency of its funding." I believe this is non-neutral because AFP is not required to be transparent about its funders due to its tax status. So it's a bit of a red herring that it has been criticized for not being transparent when it is not legally required to be transparent. Therefore, I propose we either strike the aforementioned sentence from the lede, or immediately preceding it, add "As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors." Thoughts? Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Based on the consensus in several discussions on the talk page, I'll be making edits to the article to reflect that consensus, and bring the article more in-line with articles about other advocacy groups, and making it neutral. Onel5969 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you anticipate one or more of your edits might be considered controversial by one or more of your fellow editors? I mention this because if we anticipate that an edit might be controversial, we are asked to discuss the edit on the talk page first WP:CAUTIOUS. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The lede, and your personal preference for discussing in the lede the details of the technical, legal implications of the Internal Revenue Service filing status of the category of tax-exempt, social welfare non-profits, is discussed above in multiple threads, not sure why you feel the need for a new thread. But as you well know, the lede summarizes the body, and the lede summarizes notability WP:LEDE. As we discussed above, the details of the legal implications of the laws and rules pertaining to the Internal Revenue Service filing status chosen by the subject of this article are highly relevant context for inclusion in the body of this article, but of course are not what is notable about the subject of this article, and so are not appropriate for the lede. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"red herring"? As you well know, weight in a Wikipedia article is relative to weight in reliable sources. What is very highly notable about the subject of this article is the copious coverage in reliable sources of expressed concerns and complaints to regulatory agencies, from our President, from editorial boards, from political parties, and from watchdog groups, of the notable extent of the subject of this article's political activities, while enjoying the many benefits of tax exemption, including exemption from taxation, and non-disclosure. Another detail of the legal implications of the chosen filing status of the subject of this article is that it limit its political activities, a legal implication which you somehow failed to mention in your comment above and failed to include in your proposed addition to the lede. The vast RS on the subject of this article with respect to this issue is summarized in the body, and the body is summarized in the lede. We are not asked to decide legal issues, we are asked to fairly summarize reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Hugh, I do not. Unlike you, I intend to follow consensus. You might try it sometime. Onel5969 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"I believe this is non-neutral because AFP is not required to be transparent about its funders due to its tax status." Perhaps your perception that the current content in the lede is non-neutral might be because you are focusing on one aspect of the issue, the lack of a disclosure requirement, to the exclusion of another aspect, the limit on political activity. The current sentence in the lede concisely summarizes both aspects in one sentence. The subject of this article is very, very notable for the extent of its political activity in its chosen category of tax-exempt social welfare non-profits. It's in RS, it's in the body of our article, and it's in our lede. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lee Fang column

This is not a solid ref. Lee has known issues with compentence. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a solid ref would be linking to a blog to discredit an investigative journalist. Hugh (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Money quote; "Fang has made a laughable number of errors in his reporting on Koch." Capitalismojo (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Politico wrote that "Fang’s relentless chronicling of the Koch brothers have made him something of a star on the left," while noting his "efforts to portray the political activities of the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch as motivated by a desire to boost their profits - an argument even some liberals reject as an overly simplistic caricature." Capitalismojo (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, and most importantly, this column is not Salon work but from Republic Report where Fang is employed. Fang is identified at the piece as "Lee Fang, Republic Report". It is an advocacy organization. It is probably reliable for Fang's opinions...probably. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good research! DaltonCastle (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this information seems to have been added to the article on this forum-shopped [1] advice. Clearly the solution here isn't adding more Lee Fang-style opinions to the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The source is Salon. I'm sorry Fang is not your favorite author. I'm sure anyone doing investigative journalism on this beat will have some critics. Not sure that disqualifies the source. Not sure Politico is critical. The author has editors. The source is a news report on AFP's presentation of their 2015 plans to the National Press Club. Hugh (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been shown to be incorrect, it is at the ref. This is not Salon, it is Salon publishing a Republic Reporter column. Which as a column, by the way, indicates that even if it were a Salon column it would only be reliable for Fang's opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

When you have both Politico and Weekly Standard (among others) questioning your journalistic competence and honesty there is a problem. It's a problem we don't need to import into an encyclopedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Tax Exemption" sentence

Well, this recent edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&diff=668230876&oldid=668228803) brings up another issue. This is how it currently stands:

In the 2014 mid-term election cycle, AFP led all groups other than political action committees in spending on political television advertising. AFP's scope of operations has drawn comparisons to political parties. AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits. The extent of AFP's political activities while operating as a tax-exempt entity has raised concerns among some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats regarding the transparency of its funding.

How it previously stood:

In the 2014 mid-term election cycle, AFP led all groups other than political action committees in spending on political television advertising. AFP's scope of operations has drawn comparisons to political parties. AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits. As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors. The extent of AFP's political activities while operating as a tax-exempt entity has raised concerns among some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats regarding the transparency of its funding.

I believe it should stand as either the original, or:

In the 2014 mid-term election cycle, AFP led all groups other than political action committees in spending on political television advertising. AFP's scope of operations has drawn comparisons to political parties. AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits.

Should be one or the other. Either keep in both, or take out both. Because the way it stands now is POV. Its just a critique of AFP, when it legally does not have to disclose anything. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The lede sumamrizes the notability of the subject WP:LEDE. Not exactly sure why we need a new thread on this, it is coverage at length above. While it is perfectly true that "AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors", it is also true of the entire class of tax exempt non-profits, therefore it is not notable of the subject of this article, therefore it does not belong in the lede. What is very highly notable about the subject of this article is the copious coverage in reliable sources of expressed concerns and complaints to regulatory agencies, from our President, from editorial boards, from political parties, and from watchdog groups, of the notable extent of the subject of this article's political activities, while enjoying the many benefits of tax exemption, including exemption from taxation, and non-disclosure. Another detail of the legal implications of the chosen filing status of the subject of this article is that it limit its political activities, a legal implication which you somehow failed to mention in your proposed addition to the lede. The details of the legal implications of the laws and rules pertaining to the Internal Revenue Service filing status chosen by the subject of this article are highly relevant context for inclusion in the body of this article, but of course are not what is notable about the subject of this article, and so are not appropriate for the lede. The subject of this article is very, very notable for the extent of its political activity in its chosen category of tax-exempt social welfare non-profits. It's in RS, it's in the body of our article, and it's in our lede. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please suggest an alternative summarization of the Tranparency section for the lede which is not nothing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

More attempts by HughD to insert a non-neutral viewpoint. Previously already discussed and a consensus reached. Yet he brings it up over and over. Onel5969 (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The average reader may not know that, as Hugh says here [2], "ALL tax-exempt, non-profit social welfare organizations are exempt from disclosure." It is a violation of our WP:NPOV policy to say that the organization has been criticized for a lack of transparency when we've failed to elucidate for the reader that transparency is not legally required. We say in the lede that "AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits." So contrary to Hugh's assertions, we already are including "technical details of their selected IRS filing status" in the lede. This has been discussed numerous times on the talk page, and each time, Hugh is the only editor who has argued against including the neutrally worded fact that AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of a compelling reason to take it out or how that additional bit of context would detract from the goal of providing good encyclopedic coverage of the topic. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of alignment of agendas of Americans for Prosperity, Kochs, and Koch Industries

Proposed content summarizing vast reliable sources on the alignment of goals of Americans for Prosperity, Kochs, and Koch Industries:

According to NBC News, AFP's policy agenda aligns with the Koch brothers' business interests in rescinding energy regulations, expanding domestic energy production, lowering taxes, and reducing government spending, especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. According to Al Jazeera America, AFP's policy agenda aligns with the Kochs in support of oil and gas development and in opposition to regulation, especially environmental restrictions. According to Salon, AFP's 2015 plans are nearly identical to Koch Industries' lobbying agenda.

References:

1. Caldwell, Leigh Ann (January 15, 2015). "Koch-backed Group Vows To Hold GOP's Feet To The Fire". NBC News. Retrieved June 5, 2015. Americans for Prosperity, which spent more than $100 million in the 2014 election in efforts to help elect Republicans, is vowing to hold Republicans accountable now that they have control of both bodies of Congress. The group, financed largely by conservative entrepreneurs Charles and David Koch, promised Thursday at the National Press Club to expand its reach and influence in 2015 by pushing its core legislative policies of repealing the Affordable Care Act, rolling back energy regulations, expanding domestic energy production, reducing taxes and reining in government spending, especially Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - all efforts that would financially benefit the Koch brothers' sprawling business entities.
2. Fish, Sandra (August 12, 2014). "Americans for Prosperity: Koch brothers' advocacy gets local in Colorado". Al Jazeera. Retrieved May 11, 2015. AFP — and the Kochs — are strong supporters of oil and gas development and strong opponents of regulation, especially environmental restrictions.
3. Fang, Lee (January 25, 2015). "Americans for Prosperity's legislative agenda is just Koch Industries' corporate wish list". Salon. Republic Report. Retrieved June 5, 2015. Americans for Prosperity, the grassroots organizing group founded by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, spent $125 million in the midterm elections last year. Now, they're calling in their chips. At the National Press Club yesterday, AFP president Tim Phillips and several officers with the group laid out their agenda. The group is calling for legalizing crude oil exports, a repeal of the estate tax, approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, blocking any hike in the gas tax, a tax holiday on corporate profits earned overseas, blocking the EPA's new rules on carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants, and a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, along with a specific focus on the medical device tax. The announcement was touted by NPR as a "conservative agenda for Congress." But it's also a near mirror image of Koch Industries' lobbying agenda. Koch Industries — the petrochemical, manufacturing and commodity speculating conglomerate owned by David and Charles — is not only a financier of political campaigns, but leads one of the most active lobbying teams in Washington, a big part of why the company has been such a financial success.

The alignment of agendas of the subject of this article, the Koch brothers, and Koch Industries is widely reported in reliable sources and grossly under represented in this article.

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet another attempt by HughD to insert a non-neutral viewpoint. Really, how many times do we need to discuss this? This has already been hashed out, and consensus is against this. Onel5969 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Folks - I've been going over the article section by section for the last week. I'm going to do a major re-write, section by section. I've removed most of what the consensus has seen as NPOV issues with the article. In addition, I've also removed several citations as per WP:CITEKILL. Any unbalance in the article I've attempted to remedy by adding opposing viewpoints, if I could find a cite, or if it was included in the existing citation but simply left out of the article. But if it was simply biased, or was WP:UNDUE, I removed it. I'm definitely open to any legitimate suggestions, and am not adverse to putting changes back with which those who have reached consensus. I look forward to your thoughts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Content blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections and Koch-related content

Your recent edits include section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, as well as content blanking of content summarizing the relationship between the subject of the article and the Koch brothers, which was not consolidated into its own section. Your content blanking included dozens of reliable sources for which you offered no alternative summarization. Your content blanking was not discussed. As you were reminded above, we are asked to discuss major changes if we anticipate they might be controversial. Your content blanking included content which was work-shopped collaboratively over the last four months by your fellow editors, see above. Your content blanking is blatantly pointed and non-conformant with WP:DUE. Your content blanking is squarely in the areas of the notability of the subject of this article, including the relationship of the subject of this article to the Koch brothers, the issue of the scope operations of the subject of this article with respect to its chosen non-profit, tax-exempt filing status, and the substantial investigative journalism regarding its funding. Your content blanking targets content summarizing the most prevalent coverage in reliable sources. Your content blanking is a serious embarrassment to our project as it leaves our article in a state grossly disproportionate to reliable sources. For example, you reduced all mention of the Kochs to the mere fact that one of the Kochs chairs the board of directors, a fact immediately obvious in commonly available public records such as is available at GuideStar and others. Your content blanking suggests a profound misunderstanding of WP:DUE. Mistaking WP:DUE as requiring a balance of content considered "flattering" vs. "unflattering" is a misconception not normally associated with experienced Wikipedians. Neutrality is non-negotiable. Neutrality is not trumped by consensus. Kindly self-revert your recent content blanking. Hugh (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not content blanking, HughD... bringing it inline with the consensus on the talk page. You should try adhering to consensus at some point, it might be a refreshing change for you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide links to the talk page consensus on blanking the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, reducing the coverage of the Kochs relationship to the chairmanship, and ignoring the associated reliable sources. Also, consensus may not be used to override our neutrality pillar, please see. Your content blanking is undiscussed and unwarranted. Kindly self-revert your recent content blanking. Thank you in advance for your commitment to our pillars. Hugh (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

HughD, please understand that simply because you don't agree with the consensus does not mean it does not exist. It is here for you on the talk page. I don't need to provide you with anything. You need to start listening to the consensus. And you need to better understand neutrality (since you seem incapable of it) before you start making absurd statements like that above. Regardless, you seem unable to work with other editors, so I am done with you. This will be my last direct communication with you, since all discussion with you is obviously wasted, as evidenced by your continued disruptive behavior, which has resulted in multiple blocks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide links to the talk page consensus on your blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, on your major reduction in the coverage of the Koch relationship, and on your deletion of dozens of reliable sources. Again, kindly self-revert your content blanking and restore the reliable sources you deleted. Thank you in advance for your commitment to proportionality to reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, Hugh:

• 4 editors agree the article has too much detail which is leading to WP:NPOV issues. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [3]

• 2 editors agree that recent deletions to the article improved its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [4]

• 3 editors agree that your recent additions of Lee Fang-related material should be deleted. [5]

• 2 editors agree that you're engaged in unconstructive edit warring on this article. [6]

• 3 editors agree the article is still suffering from neutrality issues due to too much detail. One editor (you) disagrees. [7]

• 3 editors agree the funding section is non-neutral and undue. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [8]

• 2 editors agree that your use of elucidate tags and your interpretation of WP:LINKSTYLE are unhelpful. 1 editor (you) disgrees. [9]

• 5 editors disagree with your proposed changes to the lede. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [10]

• 4 editors disagree with you regarding neutrality of article's content on Koch Industries. 2 editors (you, and someone you found at a noticeboard) disagree. [11]

• 4 editors disagree with your addition of wiki-project templates and ratings to the article's talk page. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [12]

• 3 editors believe neutrality of funding section is still an issue. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [13]

• 2 editors agree on an addition to the lede to improve its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [14]

• 3 editors agree a recent addition of yours was non-neutral. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [15]

• 4 editors agree a recent change to the lede improves its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [16]

Do you see a pattern here? In every single instance of recent disputes and discussions on this talk page, you have not been on the side of the WP:CONSENSUS. There's also an emerging consensus visible not on the talk page but in the article's edit history. Many editors have reverted you. Many editors have brought up concerns about due weight and neutrality in their edit summaries. It really seems like you are not hearing your fellow collaborators. You've resorted to edit warring and you've been blocked multiple times for it. Despite this, I don't see you coming to the table with an attitude of humility and self-reflection. If you continue on this path, the community may ban you from articles related to American politics or they may sanction you in some other way. It's up to you if you want to avoid that. The fact that when you were recently blocked and a majority of your recent edits were reverted with no one disputing the reversions shows that your edits did not have WP:CONSENSUS on their side. You are the only editor fighting for the content you've added. Think about that. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And yet it is HughD who is currently complaining about me reverting his attempt to re-add the Labour project. If it wasn't such a waste of time, it might be humorous.Onel5969 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Onel5969 for your recent contributions to the article. The entirety of the article seems ten times more neutral than it did before. As for WP:CONSENSUS -- I think that Champaign Supernova makes a very valid point. While a fellow user was recently blocked for a few days, there were no problems with edits AND multiple edits were reverted with ease, therefore proving the validity of our consensus argument. I hope that we can continue these kinds of edits and discussions without any problems in the near future, as the opposite has proved to be quite inefficient and tiresome. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~}

Thank you for your talk page comment. With all humility, may I ask, could you please expand further on your assessment that the article is ten times more neutral than before. Please explain further. With all humility, may I ask, in what ways is it more neutral? Thank you in advance for your reply to my humble questions. Hugh (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It is simply in my opinion that the article seems more neutral. However, I think that the edits of Onel5969 in regards to the "Funding" and "Transparency" sections specifically addressed the problem of wp:undue that we have been dealing with in the past few weeks. The sections were simply non-neutral, therefore the elimination of them has increased the neutrality of the article in my eyes. I hope that answers your humble question. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Comatmebro (and Champaign Supernova for the lovely recap provided above). We all, and several other editors obviously don't see eye to eye on everything, but somehow we manage to work through it. However, although even after HughD continues to WP:FORUMSHOP (I think he's up to 6 venues seeking support), and after he gets shot down for the (not sure, lost count) on the edit war board, he immediately goes and places an NPOV tag on the article, contrary to consensus. Simply amazing how some folks simply don't want to learn consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party here. I dont have much to say towards the above that would be original. Ha! We've done this again and again. The page currently says there is a NPOV issue. Safe to assume only Hugh thinks that? I thought there was a NPOV and COATRACKING issue before the recent edits. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"It is here for you on the talk page." Where is the talk page discussion which you claim culminated in a consensus in support for your section blanking "Transparency" and "Funding"? Hugh (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand consensus is very important to you. Section blanking is a major edit. Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking "Transparency" and "Funding," where we all together collaboratively discussed how blanking these sections, and removing dozens of reliable sources, would be an improvement to the article, with all of your well-reasoned arguments detailed, with copious references to relevant policy and guidelines, signed with your signatures, because you are not hypocrites. Hugh (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, maybe you didn't see it, but here [17] I did a rather exhaustive accounting of the numerous times in recent weeks that a variety of editors have agreed, among other things, that the funding and transparency content was overly detailed, WP:UNDUE and a violation WP:NPOV. As for the full sections getting deleted, IMO this is a case of the sections needing to be blow up. They had become so hopelessly non-neutral and coat-racky that the best thing to do is to start over. Contrary to what you've been claiming on various noticeboards, these sections were not "workshopped collaboratively." They were almost single-handedly crafted and pushed through by you. Taking a look at the edit history of the article and of this talk page, it's pretty clear that you steam-rolled everyone else to get your way. Maybe if you were willing to make some compromises on your proposed content, you could gain consensus for re-adding some of it. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw it. I have been an active editor, active on talk, and I've been on the prevailing and non-prevailing sides of many issues arising, as might be expected from any good article drive. What's your point? You give me too much credit, thank you. This article was developed collaboratively as clearly evidenced by the talk, and in sharp contrast to the recent cowardly, undiscussed content blanking. Please direct readers of this talk page to a comment in a thread, arguing for the section blanking of "Transparency" and "Funding," with YOUR signature at the end, Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero. Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My own brief summarization of the recent talk page would be somewhat different from yours: as the article approached the completeness of coverage of reliable sources required by good article criteria, yes, several editors decided they would really much rather prefer an incomplete article to a good article, and began posting vague comments about "too much detail" or "NPOV," (should I enumerate them for you?) But when pressed for a specific item of content, (need I enumerate them?) you, and no one else, had the personal integrity to step up. Knowing the sourcing was good, and the content a reasonable summary of reliable sources, and that measured discussion based on policy and guideline did not support their preferred deletes, everyone egged each other on to wield the ax until someone did. This is the exact opposite of consensus. It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it. Hugh (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your tone is getting out of hand. I don't appreciate the personal attacks. If you continue to make them, I will start a thread at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard seeking a WP:TBAN for you in the area of American politics. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't appreciate personal attacks, you say? Hugh (talk)

Yes, and I just left a reminder about our WP:NPA policies on your talk page. I encourage you to strike through your comments calling other editors "cowardly" as well as your comment calling me "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." The snark is not helpful. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong. I am excited to learn that you plan to courageously support consensus by joining me in asking our collaborators, hey, section blanking is kinda major, guys, where's the discussion? Thank you in advance for your support. You know what would final final really help clear this misunderstanding up with me is if you could just point me to a talk page comment here of the form roughly "Gee, I really think we should not cover AFP's funding, can't we agree by consensus that these reliable sources do not exist, and blank this section?" Signed, Champaign Supernova. That would have been courageous and distinguished you from your peers. For weeks I have endured a deluge of impossibly vague posts about "too much detail" or "not neutral" and BEGGED every time for the editor to get specific and get the conversation started. Where were you? Now I guess I know what "too much detail" and "not neutral" mean. "Too much detail" means funding is not allowed no matter what investigative journalism says, and "not neutral" means no unfavorable/negative content no matter what RS says. Hugh (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If this insincere "apology" and string of sarcasm are the best you can do to build good faith with fellow editors, I'm afraid you're going to have a very difficult time gaining the community's support for your actions. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)