Talk:Americans for Prosperity

Creation reasons

I created this page because there is a lack of information concerning the Americans for Prosperity organization on the Internet. Wiki has always been as fair a news source as I have found on the Internet and so I would like to start an article on this organization.

This organization is important enough to have hosted a presidential debate in Washington D.C. with 6 of the 10 GOP presidential contenders. Wikipedia needs to be covering this organization.

Xenodata 01:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've declined the speedy-delete request. Don't re-add the {{hangon}}, as this puts it back into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I will warn you that as it stands, it won't survive if anyone nominates it for deletion, as it doesn't have any reliable sources. — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

= Check sourcewatch

Sourcewatch has an article on this group that can be cited as a source, or the articles that it cites can be cited. For controversial groups it's usually wise to dig through Sourcewatch to get more background on them. You may also find more on the funding organizations / foundations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.190.139 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SourceWatch, like Wikipedia, should be used as a link source and not a standalone source. Here's a link from the New Yorker that might go farther in validating the Koch link to CSE, FreedomWorks, and AFP: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all Black Max (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Black Max

Mayer is already used, sorry. Collect (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

tags added

The article lacks reliable sources to back up the claims that Koch founded Americsns for Prosperity. This article seems to rely heavily on Sourcewatch which is not a reliable source. There is no reliable source that says Koch founded this organization, or that it is split off from CSE, which now has an expired website. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SourceWatch, like Wikipedia, should be used as a link source and not a standalone source. Here's a link from the New Yorker that might go farther in validating the Koch link to CSE, FreedomWorks, and AFP: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all Black Max (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Black Max

A very British Tea Party: US anti-tax activists advise UK counterparts: London conference sees American rightwing movement share

A very British Tea Party: US anti-tax activists advise UK counterparts: London conference sees American rightwing movement share tactics with British and European tax lobby groups Some excerpts:

• "Libertarian US Tea Party organisations attended a conference in London today to share tactics with British and European taxpayer lobby groups, and described their activities as 'an insurgent campaign' against their government's tax and spending policies."
• "Americans for Prosperity, another Tea Party group which claims to have 1.5m activists and is headed by oil billionaire David Koch, was also represented at the London conference, and helped fund it."
• "AFP is one of several US thinktanks that have sought to disrupt the Obama presidency by opposing healthcare reform, stimulus spending, and cap-and-trade legislation on carbon emissions.
• "Other leading US rightwing thinktanks that financed the conference include the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Conservative MPs Peter Lilley and Robert Halfon spoke at the event, which was also attended by representatives from Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a Climate change skeptical thinktank led by Lord Lawson, and BP.
• Aligned FreedomWorks:
  • "'We need to reach out to a broader audience," said Barbara Kohn, secretary-general of the Hayek Institute in Vienna, which is one of Europe's leading low tax campaigners and has also been advised by Freedom Works. 'We need to come from various angles. We have all seen what our friends in the Tea Party movement, and their march, have achieved.'"
  • "Terry Kibbe, a consultant at Freedom Works, which claims to convene 800,000 activists, told the Guardian she wants to help mobilise otherwise cerebral political institutions in the UK and Europe by helping them create grassroots activist wings."
  • ""We have been working to identify groups in Europe that would be amenable to becoming more activist-based, think tanks that could start activist wings," said Kibbe. ' . 'We have worked with the Taxpayers' Alliance, in Austria and in Italy, and we want to do more.' "
  • "... trains Tea Party activists in running mass demonstrations and provides access to bespoke-designed software to allow activists to set up powerful computer networks that would otherwise be too expensive. It has also published an activist manual and will shortly issue a 'Rules for Patriots' booklet."

Useful sources to this article? 99.24.248.105 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Zernike

... doesn't mention this organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, it does, but it doesn't tie it to David Koch, and it damages the effect of the criticisms of the New Yorker article, following. If included, it needs to be in a separate sentence following the criticisms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It also doesn't support those claims of what the AFP does; it supports different claims. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you add text that is closer to the source?   Will Beback  talk  07:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that better? I should add something about what she says about the purpose, but that should be in another section, I believe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see someone damaged my link (that) above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why were these references removed?

• Mayer, Jane (2010-08-30). "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". The New Yorker. Condé Nast Publications.
• Zernike, Kate (October 19, 2010). "Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead". New York Times.</ref>

The edit summary said "remove Mayer and Zernike as unreliable and unnecessary",[1] but that seems incorrect. The New Yorker and New York Times both have excellent reputations for fact-checking. I don't see any WP:RSN thread that has determined these are unreliable sources. Pending a community consensus that they are not reliable, I think these references should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliability (and bias) is disputed, and is unnecessary, as the LA Times article (at least appears) to be an attempt at news coverage, rather than political commentary, so seems adequate to support statements made in the article. The LA Times was also used to support other statements. Finally, I question whether the lede needs references for statements not supported in the body. Mayer and Zernike were not used in the body, while the LA Times article is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Guanxi moved information from the body (with specific information as to who said what) to the lede. That was wrong. I'll try to restructure the added information without removing the necessary attributions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. The LA Times article should probably be removed as a source for the lede, as the lede is supposed to summarize the body, but it may need some more work to add what Mayer and Zernike said properly to the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better way of resolving the issue than deleting the footnotes.   Will Beback  talk  10:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where to put info on Koch backing?

We're looking at the choice between 2 versions:

• A) [2] courtesy Arthur Rubin
• B) [3] courtesy me.

(First I want to say ... Arthur - When I made the edit, I didn't see your discussion above. Sorry, it is appended to a section discussing a different topic and I didn't read the whole section. If I could change my edit comment, I would! Note that I did re-implement your removal of the YouTube video, which I completely agree is NPOV. To show good faith, I'll even re-revert to version A until we've come to an agreement here.)

My thoughts:

1) I'm not sure why version A fits in Wikipedia, but maybe I just don't see something. Generally we want factual statements supported by Reliable Sources. Version A looks more like 'he said - she said' journalism, presenting the reader with the statements of several parties regarding the same issue. Is it just that it's a controversial issue and other editors want to carefully present the basis for the statements? Again, that seems like journalism, not encyclopedic writing. Version B is a very well supported, factual statement, however controversial it's political implications.

2) Also, there's some question of whether it's proper in the lede; I've seen many, many ledes with footnotes and don't see a value in redundantly restating something that simple elsewhere, but I could live with the redundancy. I feel strongly that the ownership of the organization belongs in the lede.

Please let me know your thoughts. The discussion above makes me think that for once, we will actually have a reasonable, cool-headed discussion in Wikipedia!

guanxi (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The lede (or lead) is supposed to be a summary of the body. What you did moved a section of the body into the lede, leaving the details sourced only there. Furthermore, Mayer and Zernike, although writing for apparently reliable sources, have enough misstatements and hyperbole that (at least I don't think) we can take their statements as verified facts, at least in regard a living person. We can take Mayer's and Zernike's articles as notable opinions.

IMHO, the different levels of reliability make it difficult to summarize the article in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked the pages of several similar organizations, and there is no mention of financial donors in the lede of any of them. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded yet; it's been a busy week. I should have time this weekend. I think the world can wait :). guanxi (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

AfP has been distributing fliers in Democrat-leaning Wisconsin districts advising voters to send in their recall absentee ballots “before August 11.” The recall election is being held two days earlier, on August 9.

• Wisconsin Democratic voters targeted with Koch-funded absentee ballot notices advising them to vote 2 days after the recall election]
• AFP Wisconsin ballots have late return date.--91.39.113.246 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt call either of those sources reliable. Definitely not boingboing, im not sure about Politico, but boingboing is without a doubt unreliable. Bonewah (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a little checking around, the Wisconsin AFP issued a statement about the matter here. They claim that the flyer is meant for elections held on the 16th, and that sending them out for the 11th elections was a mistake. Bonewah (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (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)

politically conservative

Collect, I undid your reversion of my "politically conservative" edit not to start a revert war but because your undoing broke a couple of other things (link to Washington D.C. and the citation to the same source in the body of the article). In any case your comment was that the source did not describe AFP as "politically conservative." It does in fact describe it as "conservative," and since it's in the WaPo's politics section I think it can be safely described as referring to political conservatism. In any case if the article simply said "conservative" then it would be ambiguous. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And if the source does not make the claim, we can not make the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss, if you can't find a source that says that water is wet, we won't be able to say it. — goethean ॐ 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm baffled by your responses. The source says AFP is conservative. What's the difference between conservative and politically conservative? Basically what you're both saying is that we must quote all of our sources word for word and paraphrasing is not allowed. This is in direct contradiction with WP:PARAPHRASE. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The lede already has "political advocacy" and thus "politically conservative" is not only not found in the source used, it is redundant, iterative and repetitive at best. I know it is horrid that Wikipedia requires that sources make the claims that we ascribe to them, but it is "da rulez." Collect (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's actually not da rulez. Da rulez is WP:PARAPHRASE, which says, "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words." Again, what's the difference in this context between conservative and politically conservative? ... Point taken about the redundancy. I propose that the sentence read "Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a politically conservative,[2] Washington, D.C.–based advocacy group." It seems to flow better and it makes clear what "conservative" means when you read it without the reader having to finish the whole sentence first. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent change to lede and cherry pick tag

I think an explanation needs to be given before the cherry pick tag can go up. It says that "This article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group." Is there evidence of that? What group collated these quotes and which quotes are they?

The lede was changed from quoting AFP's stated mission statement to instead say AFP is "focused on educating and mobilizing citizens to favor its economic policy recommendations." That is an attempt to insert a pov, whereas giving the actual mission statement is neutral. And the quote that was added calling AFP a "conservative powerhouse" is nowhere to be found in the book that is used as reference. Also, maybe the cherry-picked tag should stay in the article if that quote is going to stay because AFP is only mentioned twice (briefly) in the 286 page book. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

conservative

I added the word "conservative" to the opening sentence of the lead. Collect reverted with the comment "'conservative' is already in the very next sentence - repetitive iterations of redundant words are not useful." Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. Currently the first sentence reads: "Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a American political advocacy group headquartered in Arlington, Virginia." Without any reference to AFP's conservatism I we're failing to tell the reader what AFP is. The AFP and conservatism are intrinsically linked. (Also, "conservative" isn't in the very next sentence, it's in the next sentence after that.) --Nstrauss (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I restored the word. It just reads better this way; it's clearer to mention it up front, not hide it in a quote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Best to leave it the way it was. --Mollskman (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)