Talk:Americans for Prosperity: Difference between revisions

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)

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)

"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." applies to editors not involved in the project that wants to add it. WP:PROJSCOPE says if a project decides to have an article in its scope, then that is that. And there's no harm done at any rate. Note that this is not any comment on the merits of any recent content dispute. And this kind of scope determination can fly in any ideological direction. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There has been a lot more thought into the matter than just this. There is an editor who has been canvassing, trying to get editors that agree with him to take notice of the page. It is an underhanded attempt to get editors with a particular ideology to notice the page. I doubt anyone in those WikiProjects has decided this page falls under scope other than this editor. There would be no harm done if there was not an editor who has been pushing a non-neutral POV and canvassing to make it happen. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you believe an editor has canvassed, please report them. Please assume good faith and refrain from speculating about the motives of your collaborators here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

^Just like all those times you assumed good faith with me? Reporting me again and again despite a consensus to get me off the page? DaltonCastle (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing is not kosher. However, I think the basic issue is whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour has made a "decision" about their scope and the inclusion of this article. In the consensus discussion on the project's page which seems to have reached a mild consensus, only User:Tim1965 is a long-term/significant member of that project. I would say he makes the call at this point. He didn't seem totally firm as of his last comment there, so maybe he would like to go ahead and make the decision for the project. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would not dare to speak for the project. There would need to be more discussion by the Organized Labour project first. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 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)

References

"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)

We cannot put it there because it is WP:SYNTH, unless we have a source specifically relating it to this subject. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A number of sources discuss how the organization is not required to disclose its donors. For example, there is the FactCheck source already cited in this article [3] and PolitiFact [4]. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree "AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors" is multiply, reliably sourced and belongs in the article, and it was, until the undiscussed section blanking of 23 June which you defend. That does not mean it goes in the lede. Of course I grant you there are any number of reasonble-sounding points you could make by citing one source in isolation. I would like to invite you to join our community in fairly summarizing across the breadth of reliable sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Another aspect of the subject of this article discussed in a number of reliable sources is the extent of its political activities given the requirements in law and rule as a consequence of its chosen filing status as a tax-exempt, social welfare non-profit. The legal constraints are important background context for understanding the preponderance of reliable sources, and so are necessary in the body, but they are not unique to the subject of this article, and so are not appropriate in the lede. But if we DID detail the legal parameters in the lede, I sure you would not want to cherry pick the legal parameeters, say for example to non-neutrally support a summarization in our lede, "AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors, but some think it should anyway," because this would be grossly pointing oversimplification of a complex issue. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Operating free from taxation is a privilege, not a right. You may disagree with this, but it is so. One of the benefit of the privilege of tax exemption is exemption from taxation. Another benefit of the privilege of tax exemption is that in general you are not required to disclose your donors. To be granted the privilege of tax exempt operation, a corporation agrees to constraints on its operations. A constraint on corporations enjoying the privilege of tax exemption includes limitations on political activities. Please stop pretend you do not understand this. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Another approach we find in number of reliable sources, which you failed to mention in your recent comment, is that writers find it useful to explain to their readers the controversy regarding the scope of the political operations of the subject of this article by comparing an contrasting the subject of this article with Political action committees. In this country, we have a legal framework and an oversight infrastructure for corporations who wish to operate with no limitations on their political activities. Of course that framework includes disclosure. Citizens United re-affirmed the role of disclosure in political speech. You may disagree with this, but it is so. The subject of this article chose a different legal framework. No one forced the subject of this article to file as a tax-exempt non-profit. Authors writing about AFP have found it convenient and succinct to compare and contrast the subject of this article with a PAC; it makes the issue clearer: the subject of this article is a tax-exempt, social welfare non-profit that walks & quacks like a PAC; it takes the non-disclosure of non-profits and combines it with the unfettered political expression of PACs; this is a key if not the key aspect of its notability. It is one of if not the most politically active corporation in its class of non-profit filing status. Multiple RS state that the choice of filing status is driven by the non-disclosure. If memory serves you deleted this content and rs refs. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A reminder to readers of this thread: it is a discussion of an addition of a clause to the lede; the sourcing is not an issue. Hugh (talk) 17:56, 5 July 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. [5]

• 2 editors agree that recent deletions to the article improved its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [6]

• 3 editors agree that your recent additions of Lee Fang-related material should be deleted. [7]

• 2 editors agree that you're engaged in unconstructive edit warring on this article. [8]

• 3 editors agree the article is still suffering from neutrality issues due to too much detail. One editor (you) disagrees. [9]

• 3 editors agree the funding section is non-neutral and undue. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [10]

• 2 editors agree that your use of elucidate tags and your interpretation of WP:LINKSTYLE are unhelpful. 1 editor (you) disgrees. [11]

• 5 editors disagree with your proposed changes to the lede. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [12]

• 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. [13]

• 4 editors disagree with your addition of wiki-project templates and ratings to the article's talk page. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [14]

• 3 editors believe neutrality of funding section is still an issue. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [15]

• 2 editors agree on an addition to the lede to improve its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [16]

• 3 editors agree a recent addition of yours was non-neutral. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [17]

• 4 editors agree a recent change to the lede improves its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [18]

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)

Thank you for your talk page engagement in which a specific item of content is mention in conjunction with a reference to policy. May I humbly inquire, do you support the section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections? If so, why? If so, did you express your desire to blank the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections earlier and I missed it, and can you please provide a diff or date-time for my education? Because I don't recall any talk page discussion of blanking the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, but I suppose I might have missed it, my recollection is these major edits were not discussed. Can you expand on how blanking the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections addressed WP:UNDUE issues and increased the neutrality of the article? What was non-neutral about the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:14, 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 [19] 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)

• While I think a lot of stuff had way more detail than was necessary, the fact that AFP was founded by the Koch brothers and is seen as a part of their political network is clearly one of the most notable things about it; nearly every source that isn't directly from AFP itself touches on it. They definitely need to be mentioned in the lead, ideally within the first sentence or so, since as far as I can tell most of the independent coverage of AFP has been focused on that aspect. Other aspects of the leadership and structure don't strike me as important; likewise, individual initiatives don't really matter (the entire "Programs and advocacy" section could be massively trimmed.) But based on the coverage that I can see, discussion of its relation to the Koch brothers could make up a significant part of the article without being WP:UNDUE; I'd identify it as one of the few areas that can't be trimmed or cut, since almost every source makes it central to AFP's description. The current article (where the Koch name doesn't even appear aside from a mention buried under a bunch of other names in the leadership structure section) badly violates WP:NPOV in that it fails to give WP:DUE weight to an aspect that is clearly considered very important by most of the reliable sources that have covered it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"But based on the coverage that I can see, discussion of its relation to the Koch brothers could make up a significant part of the article without being WP:UNDUE; I'd identify it as one of the few areas that can't be trimmed or cut, since almost every source makes it central to AFP's description. The current article (where the Koch name doesn't even appear aside from a mention buried under a bunch of other names in the leadership structure section) badly violates WP:NPOV in that it fails to give WP:DUE weight to an aspect that is clearly considered very important by most of the reliable sources that have covered it." This talk page currently includes multiple active threads of discussion on the neutrality of this article. Fellow editors are respectfully reminded please do not remove the NPOV article page tag until this issue is resolved. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation in avoiding disruptive editing. Hugh (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I removed the NPOV tag, since the issue was resolved prior to it being placed there. A single editor refusing to agree to consensus does not constitute lack of resolution. It merely highlights that editor's failure to understand or abide by consensus. I would ask that editor to self-revert, in order to show he understands consensus. And no, I won't be responding to any of that editor's post, since it is a waste of time, as exhibited by his NPOV tag.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This talk page currently includes multiple active threads of discussion on the neutrality of this article. Fellow editors are respectfully reminded please do not remove the NPOV article page tag until this issue is resolved. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation in avoiding disruptive editing. Hugh (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The issues from the previous NPOV tag were resolved; the guidelines state that new NPOV tags on the same issues should not be added without consensus, and suggest that new NPOV tags on related issues should not be added without consensus. It would have been better if you were willing to remove the tag, but previous experience suggests otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Koch Brothers and weight in coverage

I feel that this has gotten caught up in arguments over specific text, so I've started a new section for it; we need to discuss the basic question of how much focus the article should give to the Koch Brothers' relationship with AFP. Plainly some people feel that it is a WP:NPOV violation to talk about it at all (since it seems to have been scoured from the article entirely in recent edits); but I feel that it's such a clearly major theme in almost all reliable coverage that it needs to be given similarly heavy weight in the article. A quick survey of the sources shows that it's almost always the first thing mentioned about the group:

• Factcheck: "Founded by billionaire businessman and conservative/libertarian political activist David Koch" is the first sentence.
• National Journal: "Most of the political world knows the basics about AFP: It's funded in part by billionaire industrialists (and favorite Democratic villains) Charles and David Koch." Lists the fact that it was founded by the Koch brothers as the first thing everyone knows about it.
• New York Times: "But he has a long way to go to catch up with the Koch brothers, whose own group, Americans for Prosperity,"
• Washington Post: "One of the major players on the right is Americans for Prosperity, a group co-founded by conservative billionaire David Koch."
• Washington Post: (describing the "Koch-backed network"): "Its main political organ, the free-market advocacy group Americans for Prosperity,"
• Washington Post: "Americans for Prosperity, the on-the-ground wing of the network of conservative organizations spearheaded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch," First sentence again.
• Kenosha News: "Americans for Prosperity — the conservative group funded by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch — is getting involved..." First sentence again.
• Huffington Post: "Americans for Prosperity — the main political arm of billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch"
• The Hill: "The group, which is backed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch..." Second sentence.
• Mother Jones: "On Monday Americans for Prosperity, the conservative nonprofit group founded by billionaire David Koch..." First sentence.
• LA Times: "Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the panel signed a pledge distributed by a Koch-founded advocacy group — Americans for Prosperity..."
• New York Times (Describing the Koch network.) "But as 3,000 activists, dozens of big donors and a gaggle of presidential aspirants gathered here for a pre-election conference held by the network’s flagship political organization, Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs’ political operation is confronting the anxieties of influence."
• Wall Street Journal "But other groups – including Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit backed by the billionaire Koch brothers –"
• Mother Jones: "At least half of the one-on-one sessions involved representatives of Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group founded by the Koch brothers and their top political adviser and strategist, Richard Fink,"
• Politico: "David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity Foundation"
• National Journal "David Koch Seeded Major Tea-Party Group, Private Donor List Reveals" (That's the headline. They devoted an entire article to it.)
• International Business Times "Money In Politics: The Companies Behind David Koch’s Americans For Prosperity". That's the headline, again.
• Slate "In the past, Charles Koch and his allies have criticized Cato for lacking real, provable results. Since then, David has found tremendous success with Americans for Prosperity,"
• New York Times "The one Koch-financed group mentioned by name at the meeting was Americans for Prosperity"
• The Guardian "Americans for Prosperity, the rightwing campaign funded in part by the energy billionaires the Koch brothers," First sentence.

...this was just me going down the list of sources; I stopped about a sixth of the way through because I figured this was more than enough, but I only had to skip a handful of sources while making that list, and even the ones I skipped almost always mentioned the Koch brothers. I don't think the sources in the article are unrepresentative, either; the fact that the Koch Brothers' support is the most noteworthy thing about AFP seems to be entirely uncontroversial and nearly-unanimous among reliable sources (frequently, 'Koch funded' or the like is the only description AFP gets, and often "Koch-funded group" comes first, before mentioning its name.) Many, many sources describe it as their direct political arm or as the centerpiece of their political network; that claim might be a bit more controversial (in the sense that we would want to use in-text attributions for it), but it is clearly noteworthy enough that the article needs to devote significant weight to it. These are mostly high-quality, high-profile sources, and as far as I can tell nobody has provided an actual argument for ignoring the heavy emphasis they place on the Koch Brothers' backing of AFP and its connection to their political network -- yes, there was a lot of unnecessary stuff in the article, but it's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we can discuss exactly how to describe it, but I think it's clear that the connection to the Koch Brothers is central to most of AFP's coverage, core to how it's generally described by reliable sources, and therefore needs to be similarly core to this article. Other details about its funding or activities are relatively unimportant and can be trimmed, but omitting the Koch brothers entirely (or failing to mention them prominently in the lead) plainly violates WP:NPOV; our job is to cover AFP the way it is covered by reliable sources, which have clearly been near-unanimous in making the Koch brothers central to describing what AFP is. AFP and the Koch brothers might disagree or downplay it (this link touches on that, and there's another denial here), but NPOV means covering a source according to the way reliable sources cover it, regardless; we can describe their objection, but giving the overwhelming unanimity of sources, we still have to make the fact that the organization is Koch-funded (and frequently described as part of their political network) central to the article. --Aquillion (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and compelling contribution to this talk page. I look forward to your continued engagment. You put in a lot of work reading and summarizing RS, thank you for that. I'm not sure lack of familiarity with RS is the core issue. Last week, as this article approached the completeness of coverage of reliable sources required by good article criteria, an editor decided they preferred an incomplete article to a good article, and subjected the article to severe content blanking in this area, as well as section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, other important aspects of the notability of the subject of this article. This purge left our article in a state which is a serious embarrassment to our project. The only mention of Koch left in the article is that David is chair of the board of directors of the Foundation, a point of fact immediately obvious from public records such as GuideStar and others. This knocks the article roughly back to where it was before the current good article drive, roughly February 2015. Yes, we are in the embarrassing position of having far less information in our article regarding the relationship of the Kochs to the subject of this article, than a reader might find in any one secondary source account. This purge would be comical in its pointedness if it were not so soul-wrenchingly discouraging. Hugh (talk)

Could you please expand on your comment that "NPOV means covering a source according to the way reliable sources cover it" because some experienced editors interpret NPOV to mandate a balance of "favorable" vs. "unfavorable," that is, "flattering" vs. "unflattering," content. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your view of the relationship between our NPOV pillar and consensus? The reason I ask is that there seems to be an idea that a local consensus may be used to overrule NPOV and exclude well-referenced, noteworthy, reliably sourced content. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? I believe a first step may be some editor education regarding the implications of NPOV. Thank you again. Hugh (talk)

I dont think anyone is saying the page should have no mention of the Kochs. But attempting to WP:COATRACK this page to make it an attack page is a POV push. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous concession that the article may mention the Kochs. You have take your first, small step to understanding NPOV! Hugh (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Here on this article talk page, please help us all focus on specific content in relation to policy, guideline, and best practices. Please identify a specific item of content you believe violates WP:COATRACK. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So I guess you've given up any effort to create goodwill or a rapport with any other editor on this page Hugh. Thats fine. Because your POV is not a neutral one, as per what almost everyone has said. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two main ways to accomplish NPOV on Wikipedia: Content weight proportional to the extent of coverage in reliable sources, and neutral/dispassionate wording. By my reading of sources, the most important aspect of AFP is their political influence as "one of the main arms of the Koch brothers conservative political machine".- MrX 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your heroic effort to document the noteworthiness of the relationship of the subject of this article to the Kochs. May I humbly comment that your survey of the current, early references in the article, impressive as it is, is skewed, to understate the more general situation in RS, by the recent undiscussed purging of dozens of reliable sources. Thanks again for your considerable elbow grease in bringing policy-based editing to this article. Hugh (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the talk page, Aquillion. According to other users this has been a heroic effort on your part. As you can see, there have been some issues in the past regarding this article and its NPOV. Recent editors have done nothing but to try and improve the article, as well as work through its obstacles. I understand your point of view completely. It is not that I disagree with the Koch's involvement with the AFP nor their contributions to its founding. I understand that that is a vital part of the AFP, however, the way that those views were represented (or misrepresented) within the article (prior to a couple days ago), deemed WP:UNDUE to me. There is a way to describe and discuss such important details without having them completely takeover and drown the article. The article is specifically about AFP, not about the Koch's, and I feel that while mentioning important details, the article should focus on it's subject. Perhaps it is simply a matter of re-wording, or like you said, discussing "how to describe it." I think this would be very beneficial to the article. My only concern is keeping the article neutral. Yes -- it is true that through WP:NPOV we rely on reliable, noteworthy and prominent sources, but according to Wiki policy, we "proportionately" rely on them in order to avoid bias. I think that proportionately is the key word here, and it is something that all editors need to focus on. We can make this article satisfactory to all users -- but most importantly we can make it neutral and unbiased, therefore appropriate for all readers. Hope this comment finds itself of contribution to the discussion. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Recent editors have done nothing but to try and improve the article" Recent editors have section blanked, content blanked, and removed reliable source references, making the article less neutral with respect to reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"There is a way to describe and discuss such important details without having them completely takeover and drown the article. The article is specifically about AFP, not about the Koch's" Sorry. If you understand NPOV and you have even a cursory familiarity with reliable sources on the subject of this article, you have to understand it is almost impossible to over-represent the relationship between the subject of this article and the Kochs. The article underrepresented the relationship between the subject of this article and the Kochs, proportional to representation in reliable sources, before "recent editors." Glad to hear you talking about "proportionality," though. Hugh (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Perhaps it is simply a matter of re-wording" The best way to address an opportunity for re-wording is re-wording, not section blanking. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I am speaking solely on my behalf, Hugh. I have not "section blanked" anything. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Above on 1 July you wrote:

"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..."

This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of WP:DUE not usually associated with experienced editors such as yourself. We sometimes find this type of misapplication of WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors. If you understand WP:DUE, and you are familiar with reliable sources on the subject of this article, and do not support the undiscussed section blanking of the "Funding" and "Transparency" sections, kindly clarify your position for all of us through your editorial actions by reverting the undiscussed section blanking of the "Funding" and "Transparency" sections. It's long overdue time for you to drop your scare quotes off "proportionately" and embrace your new, fuller understanding of our neutrality pillar through your edits. If you restore both sections in consecutive edits it counts as 1 revert toward your daily allowance. Thank you in advance for your support of our pillar of neutrality. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"My only concern is keeping the article neutral." Please I think it would be great progress on this talk page if we could hear a bit more from you about what you mean when you say "neutral." The reason I ask is that it seems that you mean something different from most. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

For reference a brief relevant excerpt from WP:DUE showing our new vocabulary builder word "proportion" used in the context of a complete sentence:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." - WP:DUE

Hugh (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The details on how the Kochs (might have) funded the organization are irrelevant, and including multiple (incompatible) theories on the funding mechanisms is undue weight. As for transparency, the fact that 501 (c)(3) and (4) organizations are not required to reveal their donors, even to the IRS, is extremely relevant to the accusations of non-transparency. These organizations, like the ACLU, are not supposed to be transparent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to your personal opinion, however, here on our encyclopedia coverage in our articles is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, as you know as an experienced editor. Voluminous reliable sources on the Koch funding of the subject of this article, the transparency of the subject of this article, and the extent of the subject of this article's political activities with respect to its chosen filing status, mandate coverage in our article in order to bring it into conformance with our neutrality pillar, as you know as an experienced editor. Hugh (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The details about how the Kochs funded AFP are very relevant to this article, at least according to how our sources discuss the organization. If you know of reliable sources that cast doubt on such funding as you seem to imply, then that material can be presented as well, however if it represents a fringe viewpoint, then it has to be presented as such. WP:PROFRINGE and WP:PARITY apply.- MrX 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The recent undiscussed section blanking of the "Transparency" section included an entire paragraph detailing multiple various reasons the subject of this article has given for its non-disclosure, meticulously referenced. Among those reasons was the one you mentioned, that the subject of this article does not disclose because they are not legally required to disclose. Other reasons were included in our article as well. The content was neutral, offering good coverage of all significant points of view, including the views of the subject of this article. That you personally passionately believe the legal case for non-disclosure is open & shut does not make the voluminous reliable sources on the topic of the transparency of the subject of this article, and the extensive investigative journalism into its funding, go away. We are asked to fairly summarize the breadth of reliable sources, not to decide legal issues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the principal editor removing the sentence that the organizations are not required to disclose?

Arthur, I participated in the team of editors that added a few brief, concise, sentences to the body summarizing background, context of the legal parameters of the chosen filing status of the subject of this article, important context for understanding our summarization of the voluminous reliable sources regarding the transparency of the subject of this article. Of the many constraints on their operations the subject of this article accepted when granted the privilege of tax exemption, one is the lack of disclosure requirement, and another is limitations on their political activity. A collaborator non-neutrally cherry-picked one of these constraints for inclusion in the lede. Also, since the consequences of tax-exemption are not unique to the subject of this article, they are not notable about the subject of this article, and so are not appropriate for our lede. See the threads "Lede section" and "Tax exemption" above if you have more questions about this. This thread is about the due weight of the coverage of the subject of this article's realtionship t othe Kochs. Your focus on one clause in the lede is inappropriate. Let's get the body right and circle back to the lede. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

But Arthur, you know all this. Please refrain from asking questions you know the answer to, that is not helpful here on this article talk page. You know better. You understand NPOV. You understand the preponderance of the Koch relationship in RS on the subject of this article. Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says? Hugh (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, please help us all focus on the current content of the article here on this article talk page. Let me ask you, right now that article says that David chairs the board of directors of the AFP Foundation; that's it. Is the coverage of the subject of this article's relationship with the Kochs heavy, light, or just right? Hugh (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Your failure to follow the consensus established in #"Tax Exemption" sentence above is part of the reason that the "Transparency" section is now gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

However, it needs more about the current funding, which includes the Kochs, although much less than the version you seemed to prefer. The funding section included only organizations directly connected to the Kochs. There must be other organizations connected to AFP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The complaint made there is clearly not valid, though. We definitely cannot include a sentence saying "all tax-exempt, non-profit social welfare organizations are exempt from disclosure" in a manner that implies that this is relevant to the complaints to AFP without a source specifically connecting it to Americans for Prosperity; citing rules in order to encourage readers to reach a conclusion (eg. that the way Americans for Prosperity works is or is not all right) is WP:SYNTH. What we can do is cite reliable sources who have discussed the topic -- if many reliable sources have said there are problems with how it is funded, we must report that; if other sources (or AFP itself) have given rebuttals, we must report those. But we cannot rebut any claims ourselves in article text, or take a sourced complaint and respond to it in article text by saying "but we, as Wikipedia editors, feel that this is acceptable because of our interpretation these specific rules..."; that would be WP:SYNTH. We can only report the analysis and coverage of reliable sources with the weight appropriate to how it appears in those sources. A point that no reliable source has raised about AFP therefore cannot be placed in the article. In any case (while I agree it's too wordy and overly-detailed), deleting the entire section over that dispute is plainly inappropriate; I don't see a consensus for that. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, you are using your permitted one revert per week on Tea Party movement articles, to remove the NPOV article tag from a Tea Party movement article that clearly has an ongoing, active, multi-thread, multi-editor talk page discussion of its neutrality? Really? You are an admin editing under arbcom sanctions, and you are here on the talk page of a Tea Party movement article, so close to your expiry, defending section blanking as justified by a dispute over a clause in a lede? Really? Some of us here on this talk page are working hard to bring some editors to a more full understanding of our neutrality pillar, and you show up waving the banner of consensus? Really? You well understand what our project founder meant when he said neutrality is not negotiable. I must insist you self-revert your pointy, unjustified, disruptive, deletion of the NPOV article hat. Please note a self-revert does not count against your weekly quota, you need not wait 'til next week. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"The funding section included only organizations directly connected to the Kochs." Absolutely false. Please refrain from using deceit to mislead readers of this talk page discussion. Kindly strike this comment. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Meticulously referenced excerpt from the "Funding" section as of 22 June, section blanked without discussion 23 June by user Onel5969:

Several major American companies also donated hundreds of thousands to the initial funding of the AFP Foundation, including $275,000 from State Farm Insurance and lesser amounts from 1-800 Contacts, medical products firm Johnson & Johnson, and carpet and flooring manufacturer Shaw Industries....North Carolina philanthropist Art Pope, a founding board member of AFP and a former AFP board chair, is the second largest institutional backer of the AFP Foundation. In 2010, the AFP Foundation received $1.35 million from the John William Pope Foundation, chaired by Pope, and AFP received half a million dollars from the Bradley Foundation. AFP received smaller grants in 2012 from tobacco company Reynolds American and in 2010 and 2012 from the American Petroleum Institute. The donor-advised fund Donors Trust granted $11 million to AFP between 2002 and 2010 and $7 million to the AFP Foundation in 2010.

Hugh (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"...it needs more about the current funding, which includes the Kochs" Thank you for your generous concession that this article may include funding, and may include funding by the Kochs. Please continue to meditate further on this issue until you awaken to a full understand of our neutrality pillar, and you may eventually come to the realization that coverage in articles is proportional to coverage in reliable sources as have most editors of your experience. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity is the Koch's primary political advocacy group

Content:

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group.

Sources:

1. Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 9, 2014). "Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity plans $125 million spending spree". Politico. Retrieved May 6, 2015. The Koch brothers' main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group. The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties' congressional campaign arms.
2. Goldman, Andrew (July 25, 2010). "The Billionaire's Party: David Koch is New York's second-richest man, a celebrated patron of the arts, and the tea party's wallet". New York magazine. Retrieved March 25, 2015. In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFPF is now Koch's primary political-advocacy group. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
3. Beckel, Michael (September 4, 2014). "The Kochs' Political Ad Machine". Slate. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved April 20, 2015. In all, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' flagship political operation, alone has aired more than 27,000 ads in a combined nine battleground states, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
4. Kroll, Andy (November 6, 2014). "2014: The Year of Koch". Mother Jones. Retrieved May 9, 2015. The Koch brothers' flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day.

A version of this content was added in March 2015 and collaboratively work-shopped here on talk in May 2015, see above in Conflicting accounts. The talk page consensus was that the consensus across multiple RS was strong enough to support WP voice, that is, in-text attribution was unnecessary. This content was deleted 23 June 2015 with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality," as a small part of major, undiscussed content blanking. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Every reliable source that I've seem makes this plain fact very clear. Attribution is not needed.- MrX 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• support restoration and inclusion of the well sourced content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments on neutrality requested at WP:NPOVN. Hugh (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• This appears to be a spillover from a public spat between the Obama campaign and Koch industries during the last election.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  What is a spillover? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose content inclusion. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As an experienced editor you understand, of course, that we are not voting, and your reasons are important. Please explain your thinking with specific reference to the above proposed content and sources, and policy and guideline. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Only people opposed to inclusion of the material are required to give a dissertation of their thoughts on the subject? Everything I've already stated on the talk page isn't sufficient? I see several "supports" here without detailed justification as well, and no comment from you requesting that they add more detail on their VOTE. That doesn't seem fair. Then again, you've made it very clear that I am very susceptible to "rookie mistakes" here on the talk page so maybe I am wrong - its your world Hugh clearly we are just living in it...Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a fellow editor of yours and I asked you to explain your opposition to this content. You're right, I don't care so much why someone else supports it. Right now I care what you think. As you know from my earlier comments to you, I sincerely beleive, in good faith, that when you talk about "neutral," it does not mean the same thing as most of us. I think one possible way forward from this impasse is for you to explain in your own words your opposition to this content and we could all look at it together. That's how we roll here. We need to get off of arguments of the form "I don't like it, 'nuf said." I look forward to your response. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us understand why you oppose inclusion of this content. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Voting is not a substitute for discussion WP:PNSD. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Seems well sourced, and provides crucial context. (I stumbled on this page, by accident, since I watch WP:AE) By the way, if this is a request for comment, why is the rfc tag not present? Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement. I started this thread in the spirit of role modelling proposing changes at talk prior to article space. It was not intended as a formal RfC. It seemed to me the most important single sentence purged from the article, and I was interested in soliciting comments and addressing possible objections prior to an RfC, if it came to that. I wanted to better understand how it could possibly be considered undue, because I had no idea. I still don't. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The RfC process exists for a reason. It is a good way to get outside opinions, if you feel that the "local" consensus is incomplete or wrong. From what I see, this particular statement is supported by most people here, but others may not be. In this case, a formal RfC can clarify matters. I notice that you participate a lot on the talk page. That is good, but keep in mind that nobody is forced to respond to all of your comments: if they feel that they have addressed your points sufficiently, they can stop. A RfC for some of the stuff can be helpful. If the consensus is still against you, you should just drop the WP:STICK. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not opposed to this sentence per se. But I would like to stress that most of you are new users on this page. You were not there through some of the previous heated battles. One user in particular coatracked the page (WP:COATRACKING) to push a non-neutral POV. So I do want to support this insertion but I cannot on the grounds that if we give this up, this user will then justify undoing all of the progress we have made in the past months. And I believe you all must commit to not allowing re-adding a sentence to become re-adding a major POV push. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Unlike my colleague, I welcome the contributions of diverse new editors to this good article effort. Of course experienced editors will immediately recognize the bankruptcy of arguing against neutral, verifiable, reliable sourced content on the grounds that we cannot afford to empower the proposing editor. In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position. To the new eyes, again, welcome, and permit me to catch you up on the "previous heated battles" my good colleague refers to: what you have missed is, as this article approached the completeness of good article criteria, a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. Welcome, and thank you in advance for all your help. Hugh (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No you dont. Stop trying to act like your behaviour of a month ago has been forgotten. You accused anyone who disagreed with you of every possible violation. You did not improve the page, you Coatracked it. Your disingenuous efforts to make it seem like you were not the aggressor and POV pusher is absurd. I am not opposing this single sentence being added. I am opposing your push to re-instert a COATRACK. If the other editors are unaware of your efforts in this I will make it known to all of them. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As this isn't an RFC, I'm not sure why it devolved into "voting," which doesn't seem particularly productive. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion. Is it your intent to organize your colleagues not to participate in the talk page discussions unless it is formal RfC? Hugh (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not my intent. And by the by, your accusation that I "comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Just how long do you suggest I assume good faith? We are not obligated to assume good faith once we have convincing evidence to the contrary. How long should I sit by, how many editors need to stop by this talk page and try in vain to explain our neutrality pillar to you? Every day a little good faith slips away and is gone. I am a deeply flawed human, my patience is not infinite. You preach consensus but you loves yourself some bold deleting. You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss. Sometimes I think I may have assumed good faith too long. I begin to suspect the issue on this talk page is not a lack of understanding of policy at all. I am gradually coming to the realization that you understand WP:DUE just fine, you just don't like it is the nut. I think you think you know better than our pillars. Hugh (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Give yourself over to our due weight policy. You will be happier. Our due weight policy is everything you could ask for: it is crystal clear, it is objective and quantifiable. Coverage in our articles is proportional to coverage in RS. It couldn't be simpler. Free yourself from your self-imposed life sentence of arguing online in order to try and craft a favorable and/or flattering article out of a mountain of contrary rs. Imagine how much more enjoyable editing will be for you and everyone around you without the constant bickering. Join us. 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: You ask "Just how long do you suggest I assume good faith?". The answer is: "forever". If you have evidence of bad faith, you should use the noticeboards dedicated to this purpose. On article talk pages, discussion must continue to WP:AGF. Everyone has a POV, but that does not mean they are acting in bad faith. I suggest you read the essay WP:GLUE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This is well sourced, coverage is widespread. I'm not seeing a convincing argument against including it here. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Essentially what Koch Industries apparently would like us to buy is their simple statement that there is no involvement . . . nothing to see here. It takes real journalists to dig past the wall they obviously wish to put up, to see there is some there, there. Not only should wikipedia accept the hard work of these journalist, sources as we call them, but their success should impugn the Koch statement. I will say I was attracted to this discussion by a (now corrected) attempt to hide Hugh's call for this discussion from public view. I think that is a normal reaction, in both cases we should look at what is being covered up. Trackinfo (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I started this thread, tho I don't own it; I would like to express my thanks to the editors who took up the invitation to take a public stand, and I am particularly grateful to those who took at extra few seconds to explain their position. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Internal rivalries

Aquillion Perhaps the most audaciously pointed deletion in last week's stunning purge of highly reliable references from this article was the removal of Jane Mayer's "Covert Operations" report in the New Yorker.

Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 20, 2015. internal rivalries at Citizens for a Sound Economy caused the organization to split apart. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

This report remains a touchstone in investigative journalism into the political activities of the Kochs, and so is a perennial favorite target of apologists. I welcome your engagement in this good article drive, but may I respectfully and humbly urge caution and talk page dialog in deleting content which appears unsupported by references at this point. So much noteworthy content has been deleted at this point that almost everything worth adding is a technically a reversion. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This source is sufficiently important to neutral coverage of the subject of this article that it was referenced in support of seven items of content as recently as 22 June, please see version [27]. This source was deleted 23 June by user Onel5969 with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality," along with several other reliable source references, as a small part of an undiscussed major purge of Koch-related content and references, see diff. So there is no doubt further damage to the article from the unilateral, undiscussed, pointed, careless content blanking yet to be discovered. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that Mayer's opinion is a reliable source, so I must act accordingly. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't consider better sources, and consider it less reliable when contradicted by other reliable sources. We can all agree the work is notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Once more I ask that you revert your removeal of the NPOV article hat from this article. You removed the NPOV article hat from a Tea Party movement article, while multiple threads on the neutrality of the article involving multiple editors were ongoing at article talk, and while you and the article are under discretionary sanctions, and then engaged on the talk page in introducing a new generation of editors to your personal theory that consensus overrides our neutrality pillar when it comes to the Kochs. Please show your commitment to avoiding disruptive editing and revert your removal of the NPOV article hat. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting rollback

A user yesterday made a HUGE edit that effectively restored all content to the page that all of us deemed non-neutral. This user justified the move claiming "restoring neutrality as per talk". Talk has no such consensus. The only item that users have supported reinsterting is a sentence about Koch funding... Nowhere near the 20000 bytes of COATRACK and NPOV issues present. Since then, several edits have been made. If I simply rolled back the page to an earlier edition with far fewer, albeit still some minor ones, issues I can imagine I'd be accused of all sorts of things and brought up on notice boards by one particular user. So I am asking here that we agree to roll the page back to the previous edition. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you would be "accused of all sorts of things and brought up on notice boards by one particular user". That particular user should be "accused of all sorts of things and brought up on notice boards". I'm sure the article would be much more neutral and stable. In any case, I approve of a rollback. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This article has ebbed and flowed between "washes," both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a WP:COATRACK with too many intricate funding details per WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground. I didn't find Viriditas's massive undiscussed reversion, which went against many talk page discussions here, to be a step in the right direction. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

By "too many intricate funding details" do you mean "funding"? What is your basis in policy or guideline for saying the article has "too many intricate funding details"? My only awareness of a policy or guideline applicable to this issue is our neutrality pillar, which as you hopefully know by now, states clearly that coverage in our articles is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Do you persist in not understanding WP:DUE, or are you still unclear about the coverage of the funding of the subject of this article in reliable sources? Please clarify so we can address your concern. Hugh (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

By "too many intricate funding details" I mean "too many intricate funding details." The funding/transparency sections resemble a WP:CHERRYPICKed laundry list of funding details that do not seem commensurate to coverage in WP:RS per WP:WEIGHT. The majority of available sources about this organization focus on its political activities/advocacy, not listing each and every funder by year. Our article becomes non-neutral and in violation of our WP:WEIGHT policy by preferentially including exhaustive funding detail at the expense of more WP:NOTABLE content about this organization's not insignificant political advocacy efforts. If you want to argue for specific inclusion of material, please do so--it doesn't seem particularly useful to go back and forth about the meta issue. Gain consensus for specific material and we can move forward. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"listing each and every funder by year" The article does not now and never did and never will list each and every funder by year. I recognize the form of your argument as exaggerating the opposing position to absurdity, a very weak form of argument. Please help us focus on content and kindly refrain for mis-stating the status of content. In fact, the article included, before the purge you so passionately defend, the frank admission to our readers that the funding section is necessarily incomplete. This takes absolutely NOTHING away from the results reported by investigative journalism by multiple reliable sources. Every funder and dollar amount listed had at least one reliable source, and almost all had more than one. Every funder and dollar amount available in reliably sourced investigative journalism reports takes on additional prominent significance given the overwhelming dominance in reliable sources of the controversy surrounding the extent of the subject of this article's political activities with respect to its chosen filing status. We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar. Hugh (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I, too, agree that a rollback would be in the best interest of the article. Key material can be carefully returned. This tidal wave change is suboptimal. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Viriditas' edit was justified, nor do I have an opinion on whether rolling it back is best for the article. However, I do have two general comments: the current version of the article doesn't meet the definition of a coatrack. Even if there is too much detail, I don't see how any of it is unrelated to the subject. Perhaps someone can explain how the material is coatrackish. My other comment is that is considerably easier to remove material than it is too add it. - MrX 21:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I take exception with many of the edits made by the above editors, especially the edits of Champaign Supernova, who made this bizarre deletion with the strange edit summary "Need stronger and multiple sources for this assertion". Either the source supports the material or it doesn't. Rather than a rollback, we need editors like Champaign Supernova to stop removing factual information for no good reason. Looking at the source, I'm finding uncontroversial facts based on evidence and no need for what Champaign Supernova calls "stronger and multiple sources for this assertion". What is really going on here is whitewashing, which is a direct violation of NPOV. We don't need "stronger and multiple sources" for uncontested, uncontroversial statements of fact based on evidence reported by NBC News. Contrary to the calls for "rollback", we need to restore all of the material that the editors up above have been removing against the NPOV policy. This isn't rocket science, this is a simple article about a political advocacy group that has gotten heaps of news coverage because of their shenanigans. Whitewashing these shenanigans from vanilla sources like NBC News is indicative of a larger problem by the editors who seem to be defending this political advocacy group in a manner incompatible with our policies. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed. The deletion of content drawn from NBC News is especially egregious in that above on this very talk page at #Summary of alignment of agendas of Americans for Prosperity, Kochs, and Koch Industries you will find a good faith attempt by a collaborator to discuss this very content and source. This editor had a golden opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to policy and guideline, laid out for him. Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, in your comments above, when you refer to "this editor" are you talking about me? When you don't use usernames, it is hard to tell who you are addressing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The only reversion that makes sense for this article would be to prior to the massive, undiscussed content blanking, including the undiscussed section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, and including the undiscussed removal of dozens of well-formatted, reliable source references, performed by Onel5969 on 22 June. This undiscussed blanking removed content workshopped collaboratively by multiple editors over many months of a cooperative good article drive. Any other reversion would reward disruptive editing and, perhaps most significantly, reinforce the misconception of some editors that local consensus may be used to override our neutrality pillar. From a point prior to 22 June, it would be simple matter to invite collaborators, as they have been invited many, many, many times above on this very talk page (I can enumerate them upon request), to identify SPECIFIC items of content, and SPECIFIC policies and guidelines of concern. Hugh (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok so the two editors with an obvious POV are opposed to the rollback. Checks out.

@MrX. There are a lot of examples on the page of COATRACKING. I dont think I need to list them out but here are a few to illustrate:

This is in the lead. This event has ultimately been dismissed. It is certainly undue to put this much emphasis on something that should be at the bottom of the page in a Criticism section.

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.

This portion makes a controversy, that ultimately has been dismissed, as the BULK of the background section.

Transparency

Tax-exempt, non-profit charitable organizations such as AFP are generally not required to disclose their contributors, in contrast with political action committees.[35][42][43][44] Some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats have criticized AFP for what they perceive to be its funding of political activities from undisclosed sources.[45] For example, the Sunlight Foundation and others have accused non-disclosing political groups like AFP of filing for nonprofit status solely to invoke the right to hide their donors.[46][37] President Obama, speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraising dinner in August 2010, criticized AFP for its political spending and non-disclosure of donors.[15][47][48][49] The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed a complaint with the IRS charging that the AFP Foundation had funded political advertisements in violation of the law applicable to the foundation's tax-exempt classification. AFP responded that the charges were without merit.[50][51]

In 2010 and 2011, AFP reported to the IRS that it was not involved in political activities.[52] Questioned by a reporter before the 2012 Wisconsin recall elections, AFP's Wisconsin director said AFP was educating the public and not engaging in political activity.[53][54][55][56] In 2014, an AFP spokesperson said AFP had the right to keep its donors private, citing NAACP v. Alabama, a 1958 Supreme Court ruling that protected National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) donors from potential harassment.[57] In 2014, AFP president Phillips said that protecting donors' identities was prudent given the Obama administration's ideology-based IRS targeting of citizens.[58][59][60] The AFP Foundation said its supporters have received serious threats. In February 2015, a federal judge granted the Foundation's motion for a preliminary injunction staying California Attorney General Kamala Harris's request for the names and addresses of Foundation donors, pending resolution of the legality of the request.[61][62]

Here why is it stressed that this tax would have funded medical research?

AFP opposed a 2006 cigarette tax hike in Indiana[198] and helped fund the "No on 29" effort in opposition to California Proposition 29 (2012), which would have placed a $1 excise tax on tobacco products to fund smoking medical research and smoking cessation.

The current page is not an improvement from where it had been before. Not saying it was perfect. But its better than it is now. DaltonCastle (talk)

HUGH'S POINT OF VIEW: I am pushing a point of view of fairly representing all significant views in proportion to reliable sources. Thanks for asking. Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the "transparency" section started its life at the very end of the article, and was moved up by another editor, not me. Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What controversy was ultimately dismissed? That you feel a controversy is settled or passed has no bearing on due weight, coverage in reliable sources does, sorry. Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what you see as coat racking? Is your contention that the whole section is coat rack? Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"why is it stressed that this tax would have funded medical research" um, because it didn't pass? Hugh (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, and any competent editor should see, two specific examples of WP:COATRACK given. I would say that both the funding and transparency sections are just undue weight. Most sources which are not attack pieces mention neither. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If a source does mention funding or transparency, then it's an attack piece, right? Hugh (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DaltonCastle gave you two specific examples of coatracking in the article Hugh, yet you ask him to be more specific?? Let me reiterate what DaltonCastle has said. For one - the lead section. The quote below, as a previous user has pointed out, should be placed somewhere else in the article to reduce emphasis per WP:UNDUE.

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'm not sure how more specific I can get on this one, but the placement of the quote in the article is WP:COATRACK because, per definition, it "ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects." I hope this clears things up. In my opinion, DaltonCastle's second example is pretty straightforward to any editor who reads it. In regards to your point of view, Hugh, I think it is a good one. However, I don't believe that it is being followed through with -- fairly representing and proportion are two key elements to making this article neutral. I think as a group we need to work on this.

In addition, (for anyone wondering what my definition/understanding of neutrality is), neutrality is being in the state of neither supporting nor helping either side of a conflict or disagreement, aka being impartial. I feel as though this is a pretty healthy understanding of the term. Do I think this article, in it's current state, is neutral? No. That is because when a reader with no knowledge on the subject reads this article, he or she will automatically become biased. As an editor of Wikipedia, I think it is my job to prevent this from happening. We are not here to determine the opinions of others.

Therefore, I support and approve the rollback request. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the passage you quoted is undue, or an example of coatracking. That sentence simply summarizes something that is discussed in more detail - and reliably sourced - within the article body, as the lede should. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are the reasons why I believe the passage is WP:UNDUE. 1.) quantity and 2.) prominence of placement. I’d like to see any other political advocacy page where the subject's tax-exempt status (and funding, which is also being discussed on this talk page) is covered in such depth, let alone in the lead. It is also WP:COATRACKING because the material is biased and applies negative opinions as facts. If we allow this, we are just digging ourselves deeper into an NPOV funding hole on AFP’s page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 13:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explicitly stating your personal opinion that the appropriate level of coverage of the funding of the subject of this article is none. Thank you for citing specific policy in stating your personal opinion. Sorry, but policy does not support the section blanking of the funding section. The criteria in policy implementing our neutrality pillar is quite clear; once again: coverage in our encyclopedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Coverage of funding is required. Your invocation of a de facto standard established by other articles has no basis in policy or guideline and has no bearing on the current article: no non-profit political advocacy organization has garnered the depth of coverage of their funding as the subject of this article. There is no basis for ignoring the copious reliable sources on the funding of the subject of this article. Summarizing the breadth of significant viewpoints in reliable sources is not coat racking. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"No non-profit political advocacy organization has garnered the depth of coverage of their funding as the subject of this article." Doesn't that seem like a stretch to you? For example this article [28] goes in depth on a number of other political advocacy groups with controversy behind their funding structures (and please don't say this is only one source, read the article and click on the links, trying to avoid WP:TL;DR here). To say that AFP is the only non-profit with controversy surrounding their funding is WP:UNDUE - they are not the only political organization with funding controversy. I think we can agree on that at least, correct? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Template

No one has commented further. I am requesting that this version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&oldid=669806083) be restored, since the editor that made it had no consensus. No one wanted to revert due to the 1RR restrictions and fear of blocking. I recognize that this will not leave the page perfect, but it will be an improvement, and leave it closer to the consensus that had been reached. We can edit it more after that. This is the version that had a majority consensus. I understand this leaves out a minority of editors, but we can address those concerns after the page is restored to a version that was generally more accepted. Reluctant to add verbatim changes since it would be a massive text. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose the proposed rollback - DaltonCastle is requesting the restoration a severely POV (whitewashed) version of this article that is completely inconsistent with NPOV and a very large number of reliable sources. To illustrate, compare the number of times the name "Koch" is mentioned (in the actual article text) of the revision Dalton wants restored to the number of times it appears just in the titles of the references. Also compare that to the how the reliable sources listed here treat the subject, and to how reliable academic sources treat the subject. (those are just some examples, I could cite a lot more if needed). There is no consensus for the proposed rollback, as a quick look at the ongoing discussions on this talk page should make clear. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

references
References

Hi Fyddlestix! This was a consensus from over a month ago, before forum-shopping took place. No one (at least, not I) was saying there should be no mention of the Kochs. But the general consensus was that this kind of weight is not given over at Soros related organizations. Not to mention the Kochs arent even the largest donors here. Stressing this point so much could be construed as WP:COATRACKING by turning the page into an attack page against the organization. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What happens at Soros is irrelevant here, it's an "other stuff exists" argument. Our job here is to ensure that the article reflects what the reliable sources say. Also, I have seen no evidence of a consensus for that revision of the page, despite myself, MrX and others having repeatedly requested that someone point out the discussion where that (alleged) consensus was developed. More to the point: consensus can change, and a consensus from over a month ago does not get to override the discussions that are ongoing on this talk page right now, particularly when new evidence/contributions have been brought to the table since then (they have, by multiple editors). Please take a look at how the actual reliable sources treat this subject, and compare that to revision of the article you're asking to have restored. It should be patently obvious that the due weight problem here is with the revision you're trying to have restored. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, allegations of forum shopping (I assume you're accusing HughD there?) are pretty meaningless when there was an actual problem with the article, which (again, as reliable sources make clear) there obviously was in this case. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you not auto-confirmed? Why the template? Hugh (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never dealt with restoring an older version such as this case before. Would prefer an admin guide us through it. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Reluctant to add verbatim changes since it would be a massive text." Are you sure what are reluctant about isn't presenting your case for your preferred edits? Lay them out for us. Do the heavy lifting of collaborating. Are you sure you are not using a point in time in the edit history because it is easier for you? Put it in writing. Explain to us why the appropriate level of coverage of funding and transparency in this article is none, explain why policy demands we ignore vast tracts of reliable sources, and sign it with your name, please. The ship has sailed on the idea of a revert in combination with the discretionary sanctions. No one is going to swoop in here and do your work for you. Hugh (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you feel someone has forum shopped, you should report them. Hugh (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Again with the consensus. Consensus is important but there are lots of things are more important than consensus around here. One is our neutral point of view pillar. You are asking for someone to swoop in here and endorse your confusion that a local consensus may be used to override our neutral point of view pillar. Hugh (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop these accusations. Ive received them from you plenty already. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

HughD has been reported as canvassing and forum shopping in some appropriate fora. (To do so in other appropriate fora would be, well, forum shopping.) And there was a consensus for the version DaltonCastle suggests (in fact, everyone commenting except Hugh was in favor of the edit and those commenting agreed it was less of a POV violation (if at all) than the version previous. Then Viriditas reverted to a version which everyone except (possibly) Hugh believed to be an even worse POV violation. I think the revert DaltonCastle suggests is a clear improvement on NPOV grounds, but a neutral admin needs to determine consensus. I don't think a neutral admin exists, and, I don't think an "uninvolved" admin would be adequate in this context, unless experienced in "writing for the enemy". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping is a serious problem; if you think someone has forum shopped, please report it. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Explaining my recent edits

Hi everyone, I made a number of edits yesterday that have since been reverted. I wanted to explain them here:

• I added this sentence [29] to the lede per discussion above at #Koch Brothers and weight in coverage and #Lede section #"Tax Exemption" sentence and elsewhere. We can of course keep discussing the merits of including that sentence in the lede here on talk.

• I think this [30] was a pretty clear grammar fix. When donations are made, I think the standard preposition is that funding comes "from" people and not "by" them.

• I added a "when" clarification tag here [31] because I thought "AFP viewed itself as a counterbalance to a network of liberal activist organizations and unions" was an awkward sentence. When did AFP view itself as such? Does it not view itself as such anymore? Happily, another editor, MrX, addressed this issue by re-wording the sentence (his edit, like mine, has since been reverted). [32]

• As I explained in my edit summary here [33], McCain ran for President in 2008, so it wouldn't have been possible for Nancy Pfotenhauer to have been his campaign's spokesperson previous to her 2004-7 tenure at AFP. The way the sentence is currently worded, it leaves it open as to whether Pfotenhauer was his advisor prior to or perhaps simultaneous to her tenure at AFP. Or did she leave AFP to become his advisor? It's unnecessarily confusing.

• Per WP:SAY, we shouldn't use the term "claimed." [34]

• This was another verb tense issue [35]. It says AFP was active in elections. Are they not active anymore? When did they stop being active?

• It seemed appropriate to wiki-link the president of the group upon first mention, who does have his own Wikipedia page. [36]

• Here [37] I tried to clarify a very long, cumbersome, grammatically troublesome sentence by splitting it into two and changing strangely-placed semi-colons to commas. I thought this increased the readability and ease of comprehension of the material presented.

• This information on the total amount of money spent by US nonprofits in 2010 doesn't seem particularly relevant to AFP. [38]

• I thought this edit enhanced neutrality and adhered more closely to the available sources [39]

• Poor sentence structure here unfortunately makes it look like we're putting Obama's critique of AFP in Wikipedia's voice--we need to be careful to phrase it in such a way as to show the critique was Obama's. [40]

• Here I think we were able to maintain meaning and enhance neutrality while trimming excess verbiage [41]

• Here I removed a source published under the banner of Huffington Post's WP:BLOG by a staffer for the Institute for Southern Studies. This didn't seem to meet the WP:RS criteria for facts about AFP's funding, as the ISS and AFP are ideologically opposed. [42]

• I removed the funding sub-heading, because as I stated in my edit summary [43], it makes it look like perhaps AFP hasn't received any funding since 2012, which doesn't seem likely. Also per WP:MOS, we're to avoid short, unnecessary sub-headings.

• I don't know what needs to be clarified here per this tag--a reason on the tag would be helpful [44].

• That Michigan may be the "birthplace of the modern labor movement" sounds like an opinion, and it doesn't seem particularly relevant to AFP [45].

• I removed ThinkProgress as a source per WP:CITEKILL, WP:RS and WP:BLOGS. All content in the article still has sourcing, so we didn't need these sources for verification anyway. [46]

• I took the description of Koch Industries from the cited sources [47]. Now it looks like we don't have any description at all?

• I removed duplicate citations to the same article [48]. Is there a reason we need two separate citations for the same reference?

So, those are my explanations for my individual edits, please let me know if any of them don't make sense. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. You and MrX seem to have made good work on some cleanup. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Partial list of requests for specific content of concern and specific relevant policy and guideline

As this article's collaborative good article effort approached the completeness of coverage of reliable sources required by good article criteria, some editors began peppering the talk page with vague comments of the sense of "too much detail," "irrelevant," or "non-neutral." Many, many polite requests were made to get the talk page conversation started, by identifying a specific item of content of concern and the specific relevant policy or guideline, and these request were most often ignored.

1. May I ask, can you be more specific about your issues ... Hugh (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Please comment if you have reasonable concerns about specific areas of undue weight ... Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
3. 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 ... Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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 ... Thank you! Hugh (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
9. 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)
10. Specifically what do you consider non-neutral? Hugh (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
11. 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)
12. Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
13. 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)
14. Please reference specific policy and guideline in your talk page coments...Thank you for your comments. Hugh (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
15. Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
16. 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)
17. 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...Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
18. 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)
19. 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...Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
20. Thank you for your talk page engagement in which a specific item of content is mention in conjunction with a reference to policy...Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
21. Here on this article talk page, please help us all focus on specific content in relation to policy, guideline, and best practices. Please identify a specific item of content you believe violates WP:COATRACK. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
22. Please explain your thinking with specific reference to the above proposed content and sources, and policy and guideline. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
23. Can you please be more specific about what you see as coat racking? Is your contention that the whole section is coat rack? Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This pattern of non-response is so widespread on this talk page that, were it not for our principle of assuming good faith, one might interpret this demonstrated reluctance to get down to specifics as a recognition that the non-prefered content was a neutral, noteworthy, reasonable paraphrase of reliable sources, and a recognition that policy and guideline did not support removal. Some of the same editors who declined to respond to polite reasonable requests for specifics instead embraced bold, undiscussed blanking of neutral, noteworthy content and reliable source references, and were among the most outspoken supporters of the misguided position that a local consensus may be used to override our pillar of neutrality. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be best if, rather than focussing on editors and accusations about editorial inaction or unresponsiveness, we focussed on edits. Since we are all volunteers, complaining bitterly that others don't respond as quickly as one would like is not helpful. The accusation that a consensus at an article is somehow contrary to the core pillars of wikipedia is silly. Editors concerned that a local consensus runs contrary to policy are encouraged to begin the RfC process to engage the larger community. There is no sign that editors here, many of whom are long term senior editors, have any problems with core pillars whatsoever. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This does seem a little out of place here, HughD. It seems like you're raising a user conduct issue rather than an article content issue. Y'all have some fresh eyes on this page right now given the current AE and ANI discussions, may I suggest that it might be helpful to try and re-focus on content here, and leave the inter-personal/conduct issues to be addressed on those boards? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DRAFT Request for Comment: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds

Question: Should the following content be added to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity:

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

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. The Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics identified a coalition of allied conservative groups active in the 2012 elections that together raised at least $407 million, backed by a donor network organized by the industrialists Charles and David Koch...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. The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors, according to an analysis of new tax returns and other documents...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 (linked to http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-players-in-the-koch-backed-400-million-political-donor-network/2014/01/05/714451a8-74b5-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html) — with more than $44 million of that coming from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers. {{cite web}}: External link in |quote= (help)

Note: all 3 of the above references are really a single days reporting by Matea Gold of the Washington post. It is one reference, not 3. The factcheck reference uses the WaPo story to back the claim (ref 3 and ref 1 are identical. ref 2 is same author on same day in same publication making the same claim. It's one source.)

Background

Previous talk page discussion above at #The Washington Post: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds.

Previous reliable sources noticeboard discussion at Americans for Prosperity funding proposed addition from Washington Post.

Summary of previous arguments

Support Inclusion:

1. Highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources.
2. Highly significant content summarizing a key finding of investigative journalism.
3. Funding and Kochs are covered extensively in reliable sources; coverage in article is light relative to reliable sources.

Oppose Inclusion:

1. Current coverage of Kochs in this article is undue.
2. Article talk page consensus opposes inclusion.
3. Sources are biased.

Survey (draft)

Please use this subsection to indicate support or opposition to the above question and a brief comment. Please do not included threaded comments in this subsection. Please feel free to change your support or opposition and maintain your position here as the discussion progresses. Thank you.

• Support Inclusion because..rationale...signed
• Oppose Inclusion since...rationale...signed

---

• Support inclusion - The sources above are compelling. Additional sources like this National Journal article, this Kansas City Star article, and this NPR segment suggest that there is enough coverage to justify adding 23 words to this 4300+ word article, per WP:DUE.- MrX 16:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to be that guy, but: the Kansas Star piece is a letter to the editor (not a RS). I like the PBS one in particular though, it's unrelated to the WP piece (doesn't even mention it) and makes specific reference to tax records which back up the claim. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

MrX, I think Hugh is looking for comments on the format and wording of what he has described as a "draft" RfC above. This threaded discussion is not yet an RfC, as I understand it. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Do you have any comments on the form of the RfC? Please comment below at the bottom of this thread. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I skipped a step. Consider this my !vote and yes, the RfC question is fine.- MrX 17:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (draft)

Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you.

This is a DRAFT RfC provided as an opportunity for comments from concerned editors on the form of the question. Please DO NOT comment on the substance of the question itself at this time. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? We've already established consensus against. You might consider bringing it up in a few months. And "Koch-linked feeder funds" is supported by all the sources; "organized by the Kochs" only by one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously Arthur the purpose of an RfC is to assess community-wide consensus. Thank you for your comments. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why again? You have already established that you will not abide consensus at the noticeboards. If someone else proposes the RFC, that might be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is the RfC process is available to all Wikipedians. If you believe you have a basis for barring an editor from a posing an RfC, you may pursue that elsewhere. This thread is to solicit comments on the form of the RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If you would agree not to edit the article, it would make sense to discuss wording of the RfC. As it stands, if there is a result which could conceivably be considered as supporting the result you prefer, you will edit it in.

As it stands, I would support replacing the funding section with this statement; most reliable sources only have one piece of information about funding, which suggests that as the appropriate weight. If you don't want that as the outcome, it would be a good idea to change the wording. I cannot recommend a change in the wording of the RfC, except, as I suggested above, making it "Koch-linked feeder funds", as supported by more sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This thread is to solicit comments on the form of the RfC. The intent of this draft RfC is a restoration of purged neutral, verifiable, noteworthy, relevant content. If you are interested in removing content from the article based on your amusing and original interpretations of our due weight policy, may I respectfully recommend you give it a whirl in a separate RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be completely ignoring the "due weight" policy. If most sources which talk about the funding mention only one fact (or, often, factoid) about the funding, then we should do the same. This probably is the most common fact reported. As written, though, it constitutes an opinion from a biased source, reported as an opinion by at least one of the newspapers. "Koch-linked feeder funds" is more descriptive and accurate.

This is probably the best you can do toward supporting your POV. It might very well not get consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your generous concession that Americans for Prosperity may have one sentence, one fact, one factoid, on funding. Hugh (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your early support of this proposed content, even if conditional. However much appreciated, your enthusiasm for the proposed content is premature in that this is a draft RfC, respectfully provided at this time to garner comments on the form of the RfC. If you believe a particular editor should not edit a particular article, other venues are available to you. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No reason to keep bringing up same COATRACK statement that has already been rejected by consensus. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Do you have any comments on the form of the RfC? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Yes, the form is missing the hat and hab bracing that should be applied immediately to what is now at least a third discussion on the same material. --DHeyward (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a DRAFT RfC provided as an opportunity for comments from concerned editors on the form of the question. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you for the DRAFT. All of the three bullet sources link to the same Washington Post source (the two obvious WaPo sources are the same and factCheck references "In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million" which is the WaPo story by Matea Gold). They are not three separate sources. FactCheck does not vouch for the WaPo numbers and in fact says they don't know (part of a 501(c)(4) is that they don't know). There is only one source and that is the author of the WaPo articles. It's false to claim there are three sources. It's one source. Matea Gold is married to Jonathan Falk Lenzner a person she met during the Bill Bradley campaign. Questionable source for these types of claims leveled against political opponents. --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward: Could you please provide a link to discussion where consensus was reached? I would like to read the arguments for and against inclusion before I weigh in on this content.- MrX 13:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's part of the RfC under "previous discussion" that occurred only three weeks ago both here and a noticeboard. Two prior attempts in 3 weeks to change something should preclude a third attempt by 3-6 months. Please make it stop. --DHeyward (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Link?- MrX 14:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion and this one are what is being referred to. Maybe I'm missing something, but if those are the previous discussions being alluded to, it seems to me as though the consensus on this point is being rather over-stated. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, neither of those are indicative of any consensus. This is not the first time that I've seen false claims of consensus on this page. How about we stop that?- MrX 16:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved if through multiple discussions and multiple edits, the text remains unchanged. It is consensus. Please read WP:CONSENSUS --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. So there is no actual consensus. I'm familiar with WP:CONSENSUS, but thanks for the link and the reading suggestion.- MrX 22:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Try reading it again. In WP:CONSENSUS at the beginning it describes "

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The existing edit has consensus and has lasted. Following the link to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus explains why. The new proposal has been tried at least twice without success. It doesn't have consensus. The existing edit remains unchanged. Pretty straighforward stuff. They even have a flow chart. It starts with "Previous consensus" which is defined as what is already in the article. Simply pointing to the previous failures to change and the existing text establishes it as consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Upthread, you stated "No reason to keep bringing up same COATRACK statement that has already been rejected by consensus." and now you seem to be saying it doesn't have consensus because it's not already in the article. Perhaps you can clarify which it is. My reading of the previous discussions suggests that there is no consensus one way or the other. That is distinctly different than "rejected by consensus".- MrX 02:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The question is fine. There's no need to make this overly bureaucratic by having an RfC to write the RfC. The proposed content is straightforward and almost verbatim what is written in several sources, and the phasing of the draft RfC is neutral.- MrX 17:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Respectfully request comments and suggestions from additional involved editors on the format of the draft RfC. Is the statement of the question clear, concise, and neutral? Does the draft RfC succinctly capture all the main arguments as bullet points? This RfC will launch soon. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that point 1 against is badly phrased, as it implies that the argument is that any discussion of the Kochs would be undue. The phrasing I would suggest is that current coverage of the Kochs is excessive. Also, my alternative proposal that the funding section be replaced by the suggested statement (with my modification) needs to be included, whether or not you (Hugh) agree with it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Other involved editors please? Hugh (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin's assessment. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Arthur Rubin's assessment, and note the good points DHeyward made about the available sourcing. We should be looking at this as one source. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: the "one source" claim, these are very clearly not "one source." If anything, the fact that other news sources and writers frequently repeat what the Washington Post printed suggests that we should give the Post's account significant weight, rather than making it less reliable. You're also ignoring this completely unrelated source (raised by Mr. X, above). It doesn't even mention the Post, and suggests that "For 2012, tax records show that AFP got nearly $44 million from two other tax-exempt organizations in the Koch's extensive political network." Fyddlestix (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The NPR item may be independent, but doesn't support the statement as Hugh originally proposed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds

Should the following content be added to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity:

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

15:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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. The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors, according to an analysis of new tax returns and other documents...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. identified by the Washington Post
4. Roarty, Alex (January 16, 2014). "Koch Brothers Are Outspending Everyone for a GOP Senate Takeover". National Journal. Retrieved July 10, 2015. Look no further than Americans for Prosperity, the conservative outside group funded in part by the wealthy industrialists Charles and David Koch...The nonprofit organization has been a major player among Republicans in the post-Citizens United campaign finance world. It spent $140 million, $44 million of which came from Koch-backed funds, the Washington Post reported.

Background

Previous talk page discussion at Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity#The Washington Post: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds.

Previous reliable sources noticeboard discussion at Americans for Prosperity funding proposed addition from Washington Post.

Summary of previous arguments

Support Inclusion:

1. Highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources.
2. Highly significant content summarizing a key finding of investigative journalism.
3. Funding and relationship with Kochs are covered extensively in reliable sources; coverage in article is light relative to reliable sources.

Oppose Inclusion:

1. Coverage of funding and relationship with Kochs in article is/will become undue.
2. Article talk page consensus opposes inclusion.
3. Sources are biased or inadequate.

Survey

Please use this subsection to indicate support or opposition to the above question and a brief statement. Please do not included threaded comments in this subsection. Please feel free to maintain your position here as the discussion progresses. Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as this article is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you.

• Support Inclusion because...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
• Oppose Inclusion since...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed

---

• Support Inclusion The funding of Americans for Prosperity, the relationship between Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers, and the role of Americans for Prosperity in the 2012 elections are among the most notable aspects of Americans for Prosperity. The coverage of funding and the relationship with the Kochs is severely under-represented in this article, relative to coverage in reliable sources, so severely under-represented as to be grossly non-neutral and an embarrassment to our project. The Washington Post is among the most unimpeachable sources available to us, an international newspaper with a distinguished reputation in reporting on transparency including multiple Pulitzer Prizes for investigative journalism. The noteworthiness of the proposed content is manifest by the widespread coverage including FactCheck, the National Journal, and others. This pair of reports in The Washington Post on the results of a major investigative journalism project into the funding of political activism by the Kochs is among the most significant sources on this topic. The proposed content is neutral. Hugh (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - The sources above are compelling. Additional sources like this National Journal article, this Kansas City Star article, and this NPR segment suggest that there is enough coverage to justify adding 23 words to this 4300+ word article. Per WP:DUE: "... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."- MrX 18:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion as written. Support replacement of the section with a sentence similar to the proposed, with "Koch-linked feeder funds". (A required option as noted in the discussion of the draft.) Not only is the discussion here on funding disproportionate to discussion in reliable sources (most sources have only one or two facts), but some funding may be reported in more than one sentence, without it being obvious. I'll analyze the sources given to show that the statement given is not supported by the sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Changed to oppose. Thanks to Hugh, we see that we have nearly equally credible sources which disagree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion - Content is well sourced and clearly notable. Note as well this wholly unrelated reporting from NPR's election finance correspondent, Peter Overby, which notes that "For 2012, tax records show that AFP got nearly $44 million from two other tax-exempt organizations in the Koch's extensive political network." Claims that this info - or the article's treatment of the financial connections between AFP and the Koch brothers more generally - are UNDUE appear to be without foundation. See this massive list of sources and this tertiary academic source for conformation; virtually all major RS give great weight to these financial connections. Attempts to minimize them here have no basis in policy and are not NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion Numbers and figures speaking to the funding of AFP certainly belongs in the "Funding" section and the sources support the suggested inclusion. Any questions of "weight" concerns are easily dismissed by the fact that multiple sources regard Koch Industries/Koch Brothers as the primary funding behind AFP. Since they are considered the primary funding entity, they deserve coverage in relevant sections and that coverage should represent the dominant role they play as financiers. If the money they've donated only amounted to a small fraction of the group and an attempt was being made to present them as being bigger backers than they are, then I'd rightly oppose this inclusion. However, nothing suggests that's the case here and everything that is presented clearly speaks to the role the Koch brothers have in the organization.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion (see below) I'm commenting here because I commented on the previous, related WP:NPOVN notice board request made by Hugh and Hugh put a RfC note there. I don't think the citations rise to the level of rock solid. Two are from the same reporter, the third and fourth quotes cite the Washington Post and presumably said reporter. Thus all four are basically the view of one reporter. I can't see this rising to the point of being highly reliable vs something that has been reported. It appears to be reliable information but that doesn't mean Hugh has established how it should be used in the article and care should be taken to avoid WP:RSUW to the specific Washington Post claim vs the phrasing of the NPR article mentioned above. Since this RfC came from WP:NPOVN rather than from WP:RSN I will say I don't know that Hugh has convinced me that the addition or removal of the text is a WP:NPOVN issue. UPDATED: Per Hugh's request I have added a vote. I think he has established that one news organization has made this claim. What he has not shown to my satisfaction is that the sentence would or would not add undue weight to the specific claim. So I don't question the general reliability of the claim but how that information is to be used seems to be a point of contention. Hugh should give the inclusion more context before I would support inclusion in the method he has proposed.Springee (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose-ish I'm fine with well sourced funding info. The references above are all essentially one ref (WaPo). A second ref (NPR) from MrX and Fiddlestix says something similar but critically different "For 2012, tax records show that AFP got nearly $44 million from two other tax-exempt organizations in the Koch's extensive political network." So, is it almost $44 or is it more than $44 million? Is it from a network or is it from two tax exempt entities in a network? Both could be correct. Perhaps (and I'm speculating here), nearly $44 million came from only 2 entities and to get over $44 million the WaPo reporter found odds and ends to push beyond $44. Maybe the number was just rounded up. In any event the NPR ref is more specific: "tax records", "almost $44", "from two tax exempt entities". I'd go with the more specific data, hence my !vote. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, if NPR is accurate about the tax records the $44 million will have gone to AFPF the charitable affiliate, FWIW. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Lacks multiple independent sources and lacks a clear connection to the organization. It's bait for Koch Brother COATRACK material. It's SYNTH and not notable. To give a similar example a "Koch based feeder funds" standard would be like saying that any downstream org that receives money from planned parenthood anywhere in the chain is funded by abortions. It's a COATRACK nightmare if such a low standard can be connected. --DHeyward (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. High quality source by respected veteran political reporter Matea Gold, echoed by other high quality sources, plus further sources linked in MrX's and Fyddlestix's entries, show that this is an important and significant fact. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion as written, per Arthur Rubin's proposal. I support the replacement of the section with a similar sentence that was proposed in the RFC draft. The sources lack a clear connection to the article, and I feel that the statement is violating WP:SYNTHESIS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we going to survey everything previously deemed undue, POV, or coatracking back into existence? Its undue. Are you going to include this same type of coverage in Soros related foundations? Or the other donors of AFP? Are we going to slowly add back more and more POV statements to the article until we are given a survey on adding back completely arbitrary statements like "The Washington Post said taxpayers should know where there money is coming from" ? Its undue. It opens the door to POV and COATRACK. Lets just keep it out and drop this issue so we can go actually improve Wikipedia. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - single sourced, only one source for 44M.--Polmandc (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per Binsternet. IMO, the "oppose" votes seem to be more a case of making up new rules for "I just don't like it" information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - I think Scoobydunk's !vote demonstrates one of the serious problems with the inclusion of this type of statistic, bare of any sort of context: "...multiple sources regard Koch Industries/Koch Brothers as the primary funding behind AFP. Since they are considered the primary funding entity..." Since $44 million is markedly less than 50% of $140 million, and the funding of AFP was primarily from sources outside the nebulous, undefined "Koch-related" aka "-linked" aka "-backed" network. This means it is no more "Koch-backed" than it is "Groups X, Y, Z-backed", so why should we define it as such? And as I do some quick arithmetic of the contributions that are listed here like $850K from David Koch, and a million here and there from other groups across various years, I find that there must have been significant contributions from other sources to sum up to those figures. Singling Koch(s) out clearly makes the funding seem more monolithic than it truly is - the RSs do not single Koch out as the "primary funder" and presenting it this way observably has the effect of misleading average readers (and clearly even readers who are more critically analyzing the sources) into believing they do. Furthermore, in an election cycle in which at least $6.3 billion was spent (for clarity of comparison, $6,300 million), we do little to demonstrate what the importance of that $44 million out of $140 million statistic is. To the average reader without further context, it just reads as "a lot of money". Problematic, given the policy that we should not WP:INDISCRIMINATEly include statistics without their proper context. Are we saying that the Kochs have a great deal of control over AFP's operations? That seems to be the implication; do the sources support that as well? I wasn't aware this went through RSN, so never mind the fact that the original source Matea Gold does not even explain the origin of this information, nor, as I said earlier, by what parameters her statistics include or exclude groups from the set of groups that are defined as "Koch-linked". This is unacceptable and itself untransparent. It could mean literally anything and still technically be correct. In any sort of scientific context this would render the results completely useless and they would therefore be universally ignored. Unfortunately for us, it is not. But we are still asked to use some editorial discretion and common sense in our inclusion of material. The fact that it has been repeated in a few RSs does not compel us to include it here. Without further context or better definition, the line provides very little in the way of informational value for the reader and very much in the way of POV/verifiability issues. Unless I'm missing the point. So I ask again - what exactly is this line attempting to demonstrate? Why is it important to single out this mathematically minor, poorly defined set of contributors? To Hugh's concern, if the point is to clarify that a relationship between AFP and Koch exists, I'd point out that a "Ctrl+F" search of the page for "Koch" already yields several results (87, at present, including refs), some of which are lines on the founding and funding of the organization. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - My new BFF, AdventurousSquirrel, hit the nail on the head. Why indeed is it important to single out this mathematically minor, poorly defined set of contributors? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion: I don't think it's useful to decide what belongs in the funding section on a piecemeal, sentence-by-sentence manner. Context matters. The only way we can determine if this particular proposed content is appropriate in the article is by knowing what other content will go alongside it. I think the article should have a funding section, but we cannot know if WP:DUE weight is given to the Koch contributions unless we have a handle on what other content is to be in the section. AdventurousSquirrel makes a good point about proportionality. The sources seem to say that in 2012, the Kochs were involved in funding a bit less than 1/3 of the group's budget. Who funded the other 2/3? A fair and comprehensive funding section would discuss this and give due weight based on a percentage of the budget funded by each entity. Winning consensus for inclusion of one sentence doesn't necessarily move the ball forward on building a neutral funding section that gives due weight to each donor based on the proportion of the budget each donor has given. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per WP:LEAD which specifies that significant controversies shouldn't just be mentioned, but that they should be summarized in the introduction of the article. EllenCT (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion for reasons already pointed out by DaltonCastle and AdventurousSquirrel. Abierma3 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per DaltonCastle. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. For some reason a number of commenters seem to think we need more than one reliable source stating something for it to be verifiable. No, we only need one uncontradicted source. Here it appears we have three. The fact that the same journalist wrote both WaPo sources isn't very relevant. The author is a veteran reporter with 20 years of experience at top-flight newspapers, and both of her pieces were fact-checked by WaPo's highly reputable editorial staff. Then we have FactCheck.org repeating the same statements. FactCheck.org is one of the most reliable sources there is. The proposed language appears to accurately reflect these sources without any improper synthesis. All three sources specifically call out the Kochs' contributions to AFP, which given these sources (and many others) is highly noteworthy and not at all undue. I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The RfC should be formatted something along the lines of ArthurRubin’s proposal noting that the current coverage of the Kochs is excessive and that the funding section be replaced with “Of the $140M AFP raised in the 2012 election cycle, more than $44M came from Koch-linked feeder funds”. And to touch on DHeywards’s point, WP:CONSENSUS was already met on this issue. Opening up new discussions over the inclusion of content that has already reached consensus multiple times is not not beneficial and prohibits users from improving the quality of the page. Thanks. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of the Koch brothers is not excessive. Anyone who thinks that it is needs to familiarize themselves with what RS actually say on the subject (credit to Aquillion for that list and their thoughtful contribution on this point above), and to check out some high-quality, academic sources like this one and this one - both of which make it clear that the Koch connection is the central point of interest for most academics who have studied AFP. Also, as both myself and MrX have noted above, the supposed consensus which some editors keep citing here does not appear to exist. Activity on this page was recently the focus of both an AE and an ANI thread because people are not listening to each other and letting their emotions get in the way. So: please stop hand waving about a pre-existing consensus that never was: focus on the arguments and evidence, and leave your baggage at the door. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Also note that there is a previous consensus for exclusion, so that an overriding consensus would be required. (The consensus, although weak, does exist. All participating editors other than HughD agreed to exclude the material, as well as some other material now restored by a drive-by.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, can you provide a link to the discussion where this consensus was developed, please? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: can you clarify what you mean by "replacement of the section?" It's not clear to me what content/section you'd like to see removed and replaced, perhaps you could be more specific. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC) moved Hugh (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The entire paragraphs on funding of AfP, not including comments related to transparency. (Transparency is a separate issue.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Thanks for clarifying. Still waiting on you to link the discussions where the consensus you refer to above was discussed and developed. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You understand that consensus occurs when decisions to add things are rejected. The article is defacto consensus when proposals to change it fail. --DHeyward (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to be patronizing, I understand perfectly well how consensus works. Perhaps we shouldn't derail this discussion further by going off on a tangent about what consensus is or isn't, though; the result of this RFC will supersede any (alleged) local consensus anyway. I was simply curious what discussions Arthur was basing his statement on, if he'd rather not give specifics, that's fine. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

1. Sources 1 and 2 (by the same author in the same publication) has $44M only in the context of "Koch-linked feeder funds". They mention a donor network organized or backed by the Kochs, but that seems to be the entire Kochtopus, and doesn't mention a dollar amount.
2. Source 3 doesn't presently have a URL, but your quote has $407M for the Koch organization as a whole (for unspecified years), and $44M for "Koch-based feeder funds".
3. Source 4 quotes the Washington Post as saying "Koch-based funds".
4. NPR says "two other tax-exempt organizations in the Kochs' extensive political network".

I don't see "a donor network organized by the Koch brothers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "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" appears verbatim (I just copy-pasted that) in this source (factcheck.org). @HughD: did you mean to link this as part of your "source 3" above? Fyddlestix (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disingenuous as you failed to note the embedded link in factcheck.org. "reportedly raised" is linked to the WaPost article. It's blue in the artcile. It looks like this: "AFP reportedly raised $140 million" Follow the link and you will see that factcheck.org is not doing an original report, they are reporting what WaPost said. --DHeyward (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: 'I don't see "a donor network organized by the Koch brothers"' It's bolded. Should I make it all caps? Hugh (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Thanks for your comments. The title is linked in source 3, isn't it? It works for me. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: You're correct. I probably had one too many tabs open earlier and got confused, my bad. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not near the $44M, but near the completely different $407M. But let me check again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Kochtopus is not in the proposed content or in any of the refs. Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and refs. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
2. The title is linked. Hugh (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
3. The National Journal did not use the exact same words as The Washington Post. They paraphrased. Sort of like what some of us do. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
4. Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and refs in the RfC above. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That wording seems significantly different, to the point that it seems to be synthesis to assert that it's the same $44M or Koch-related organizations. For what it's worth, most of the articles also include the $407M, and I have no idea where that came from. It's probably the sum of the funding of all the Koch-related organizations, as there is no easy way to eliminate double- (or triple-) counting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Further reasons for reducing the section.

1. Each fact has a single source (there are few sources which have more than one fact)
   1. There are different (sets of) organizations and (sets of) years, so there may be overlap.
   2. Including them all together would encourage readers to add the totals, which we could not do, being WP:SYNTHESIS.
2. Some of the facts have limited relevance. The last time I checked, there was a $500,000 entry which is out of $140 million or so. That would be less than 0.3%, even though we might not be able to say that in the article, if the $500,000 and $140 million were from different sources.

(The fact that the information can only come from reports of the funding organization, not of AFP, could be somewhat relevant, although that is also overweighted at the moment. But we are not discussing the "transparency" section in this RfC. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"reducing the section" Please help us all focus on the above RfC, which proposes a one-sentence addition. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the draft discussion, the RfC needs to include the option of replacing the funding section with the corrected sentence. You ignored that fact when you opened the RfC. The RfC should probably be considered null as too biased if that option is not included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This RfC and its draft are both one sentence adds. I'm sorry you are not happy with that. This RfC does not propose removing any content. On the first day of an RfC for a one-sentence add you are on recorded planning how to get it nullified. As you know you have venues for contesting the close if it comes to that, but you're not worried, are you? why not wait and see how it turns out. Your opposition to the question of this RfC is noted above in the survey, thank you for that. Please consider a separate RfC to embody your interpretation of our due weight policy that the appropriate coverage of the funding of AFP is one sentence, take some time to think it through and build your case based on policy and guideline and I look forward to reading your position. Please do not be disruptive here on his RfC. Hugh (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible.

Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:

Top organizational contributors chart cross-posted from ANI

Top Organization Contributors RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1% 2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0% 3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1% 4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4% 5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0% 6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1% 7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100% 8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52% 9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7% 10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2% 11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1% 12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58% 13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6% 14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100% 15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47% Source: [ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ]

BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.

Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/

While we are not bound by what those other pages do (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), there is a good reason why the editors of those other pages don't treat the other large donors the way the Koch brothers are treated here. It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.

Wikipedia should give the same WP:WEIGHT to donations and criticisms of same no matter which side they support. And large numbers of left-leaning blogs and news sites all talking about the Koch brothers doesn't really show that it is widely reported when 99% of those stories are the direct result of comments about the Koch brothers by the democratic party and by president Obama. Proper weight would be a NPOV section (not in the lead) reporting what the president accused them of and what their response was. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible."

Just in case you're not aware of it, editors of this page are subject to discretionary sanctions. Your comment doesn't seem very helpful at all.- MrX 01:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Any admin is free to take action if he or she thinks that expressing an opinion concerning a systemic bias is deserves a discretionary sanction. Of course I will be royally pissed off if said admin fails to fist post a note to my talk page asking me to stop doing whatever he or she thinks I did wrong so I can stop and discuss. I think that I can easily demonstrate that there is indeed a a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, and that other major political donors don't get the same treatment. I am apolitical, but against POV pushing of any kind on Wikipedia. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to work with you to include the President's noteworthy comments and noteworthy reactions, but not in this thread, thanks. A few nice sentences doing exactly what you suggest was recently deleted. One thing at a time, ok? Is this a cross-post from ANI? If so please replace it here with a brief summary and link. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a separate discussion from ANI. ANI deals with user behavior, not article content, and the fact that I believe that there is a systemic bias is relevant to the user behavior ANI is examining. The fact that I believe that there is a systemic bias is also relevant to article content, whch of course should be discussed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Above in your brief statement of position in the survey you asked, "Why indeed is it important to single out..." Coverage of the subject of this article's relationship with the Koch is not an expression of systematic bias, it is an expression of our commitment to our neutrality pillar: a fair, unbiased summary of high quality reliable sources requires coverage of the Koch relationship, of funding, and of the results of investigative journalism, however incomplete a picture investigative journalism reveals to us. May I respectfully suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias may be an appropriate forum for you to collaborate with colleagues on the pattern of bias you perceive. Here in this RfC on this article talk page please familiarize yourself with the high quality reliable sources used in this article and update your position. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to try actually reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias before suggesting that editors talk about political bias in articles there (and conveniently, not challenging your assumptions here) That's not the kind of bias that project addresses. Wikipedia:Systemic bias may also be helpful if you want to understand the nature of the systemic bias that I and other editors are attempting to deals with. WikiProject Countering systemic bias specifically does not address the kind of political bias we are discussing here, other than the obvious fact that we, like many other Wikipedia editors are talking extensively about US politics while politics in other parts of the world are neglected. That's a real problem, and one that Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is working hard to rectify, but they don't care at all about bias for or against particular US political views and against others.

Are you saying you oppose the above proposed content because it unduly increases our coverage of US politics? Hugh (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The relevant pages for the kind of bias that I am seeing here (cherry picking sources that put the Koch brothers in a bad light while ignoring other major political contributors) are WP:BIASED, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and especially WP:POVS. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying the above proposed content puts the Koch brothers in a bad light? How so? I believe the above proposed content is neutral. Hugh (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you'd have to provide sources that place emphasis on other groups funding AFP for there to be a violation of WP:Biased. That's how NPOV works, it's not a term people get to just throw around when they don't like what reliable sources say. If there were numerous sources, some of them emphasizing Koch funding, some of them emphasizing Adelson funding, some of them emphasizing ground-roots funding, then it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to strictly write the article placing an emphasis on Koch related funding. In this example, the editors are being biased in writing the article to reflect their POV about koch related funding while ignoring other funding that is also represented/emphasized in reliable sources. However, if there are no articles/reliable sources placing an emphasis on other AFP funding groups, then it is not a violation of NPOV to ignore them when writing the section. As a matter of fact, to give those other groups importance when no reliable sources articulates their importance, is the actual violation of WP:NPOV. Hugh's proposal is backed by numerous reliable sources and unless you can prove that other reliable sources give other funding entities equal importance as the Koch related funding, then arguments about WP:biased and WP:NPOV are fruitless and inapplicable. Simply, there are no other point of views when it comes to primary funding that counter the Koch related funding point of view.

Now, even if you find sources that speak to the importance of other funding groups, this is where WP:weight policies come into place. We examine the number of sources that reflect Koch-related funding compared to sources that emphasize other related funding and make sure that those viewpoints are covered in the article relative to the amount of representation they have in reliable sources. So if Hugh as 7 sources that place importance on and speak to Koch funding the AFP and you find 1 source that places importance on another group, then the article will clearly reflect what the 7 sources say, with MAYBE a brief mention of your 1 source that holds an alternative viewpoint.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your time and commitment. Please let us try to depersonalize our discussion. "The RfC proposed content..." please. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's try and keep the red herring arguments and down to a minimum. We're here to discuss Wikipedia policy regarding the information in the RFC and I've yet to see anything substantiated by those policies that would oppose including the information. So far all I'm seeing in the way of opposition are "I don't know"s and "but they aren't doing it" which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you may have a case of WP:IDHT. I don't see how the argument by AdventurousSquirrel in particular can in any way be characterized as "I don't know" or "but they aren't doing it". Dismissing the opinions of over half of the respondents to the RfC as "red herring arguments" while ignoring the principled arguments they posted in not helpful. I suggest that in the future you stick to arguments about content and sources and avoid comments about other editors. -Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd advise you to take your own advice. This statement of yours "It appers that you may have a case of" is a direct criticism of me as an individual and doesn't address my arguments. Furthermore, I didn't comment about other editors, I commented on the validity of their arguments and said that they are red herring arguments. So your suggestion doesn't apply to me in this instance, but certainly does apply to your previous comment. Multiple people opposed speak to other articles that don't approach funding in the same way, which is irrelevant to this article and the fact that sources do discuss funding they way Hugh's suggested inclusion claims. That means they are red herring arguments and red herring arguments are logically fallacious in determining the validity of a claim. Hugh says this information should be included because of WP policies XYZ, and instead of actually citing policies, many of those opposed make irrelevant appeals to how other articles are written or should be written as a result of this. This is me addressing those arguments and explaining why they don't have merit, which is what my previous comment suggested.

Furthermore, if you want to speak specifically about AdventurousSquirrel's contribution, it largely hinges on OR claims which are irrelevant to what gets reflected in the WP article. He starts by using math to try and discredit what reliable sources have to say about Koch related funding and its importance. Sorry, but you are not allowed to use your own arguments to try and refute what reliable sources actually have to say. Therefore, it is red herring argument because it doesn't address what policies WP has to refuse this information being included into the article and is not relevant to this RFC. This is not a place where editors get to debunk what reliable sources actually say. He then talks about us doing little to "demonstrate what the importance of that $44 million out of $140 million statistic is" which, again, is not our responsibility as editors. Reliable sources are the ones that establish importance, we simply write the article to reflect that importance. Now, if he had other articles that placed the emphasis of funding on other entities, then he might have a point with making sure the WP article reflects those other articles. But if his position isn't supported by reliable sources, then it's irrelevant in terms of NPOV, because his position is not represented in reliable sources and, therefore, doesn't even exist as a POV. Not to mention, multiple reliable sources do cite Koch as being the primary funding for AFP, so this part of his statement is just inaccurate. So, that's 2 red herring arguments right off the bat. He then questions the reliability of the source's statistics, which is another example of him trying to refute reliable sources. We are not here to debate what scientists actually say, we're here to write articles to reflect what scientists say. So this is another red herring argument and CAN be dismissed as simply that. So, ultimately, Squirrel's only arguments boil down to context and NPOV which are both problematic. In reality, his comment is trying to create context to muddle/refute what reliable sources have to say about AFP's funding from the Koch brothers, since they mostly don't put emphasis on other funding sources. This approach is against WP policy regarding original research and NPOV. Also, Squirrel does say towards the end of his comment "unless I'm missing the point" which is an example of one of the "I don't knows" that I was referring to. This is exactly why most of Squirrel's comment and those who parrot it, can be ignored in terms of arguments that have actual basis in WP policy for preventing exclusion. Multiple reliable sources put an emphasis on AFP and its funding from the Koch family, there is no confusion about that. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 01

@Springee: Thank you for your engagement with this RfC. Please move your comments to this threaded discussion area if you are not going to take a position on the question of this RfC, thanks. In terms of verifiability, one source, The Washington Post is sufficient. For Wikipedia purposes the number of authors does not matter as much as the number of editorial staffs; between the four refs above are three quality editorial staffs. The $44M and $140M figures got passed three editorial staffs. The third and fourth refs cite the first and second; that's not an issue, that's the noteworthiness of the proposed content. Hugh (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: "not shown to my satisfaction is that the sentence would or would not add undue weight to the specific claim." Our due weight policy very strongly endorses inclusion of the proposed content in this article. The funding of Americans for Prosperity, the relationship between Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers, and the role of Americans for Prosperity in the 2012 elections are among the most notable aspects of Americans for Prosperity. The coverage of funding and the relationship with the Kochs is severely under-represented in this article relative to coverage in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: Please see our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS:

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.

Please let us know if you have any questions on our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS. Please update your statement of position to reflect your understanding of our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. It does not sufficiently address my concerns on the mater. Springee (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: Above in your statement of position you wrote "all four are basically the view of one reporter" and "one news organization has made this claim." How do you reconcile this position with your new understanding of our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS? Please update your above statement of position to reflect your understanding of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Please move your comment on MrX's statement to this threaded discussion subsection. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem if MrX wishes to move his new sources to the "Sources" section of the threaded comments. A drive by list of unchallengable sources in the Support/Oppose section warrants a threaded response right underneath those misleading and poor sources. It's not related to the proposal and things like a KC star letter to the editor is being misrepresented as an article. Considering other editors are citing MrX's "sources" as their reason for support impliease they are misinterpreting both the sources and the RFC.. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward please move your rebuttal to my !vote to the threaded discussion section. The RfC is specifically structured so as not to permit threaded rebuttals.- MrX 16:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to all for citing additional reliable source references in support of their statements of their position or in their comments in the threaded discussion comments. All are welcome to cite references which support or contradict the content posed in the above RfC question. Please help us all out, and in particular show consideration for our closer so they do not have to hunt through threaded discussion in search of statements of position. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Thank you for your support of well-sourced funding info.

Overby, Peter (March 6, 2014). "Running Against The Koch Brothers". National Public Radio. OVERBY: Phillips is also president of AFP's companion charity organization, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. David Koch is the foundation's chairman. Long-time Koch associates serve on the boards of both groups. For 2012, tax records show that AFP got nearly $44 million from two other tax-exempt organizations in the Koch's extensive political network.

Of course National Public Radio and Overby are reliable sources in general, but in this particular instance I believe you may be reading too much into the exact wording of a transcript of a radio interview to attempt to undermine the references included in support of the above RfC. The NPR interview does not explicitly cite The Washington Post's investigative journalism report, though I believe the NPR report adds noteworthiness to the proposed content. As you know from your thorough reading of the main sources, The Washington Post investigative journalism reports, The Washington Post found that just two organizations, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and TC4 Trust, dominated the donor network organized by the Koch brothers, so there is no contradiction in the NPR transcript; however, at this time explicitly calling out these two funds by name is not part of the content proposed by this RfC. NPR is not among the references included in the above RfC. Respectfully I feel that, in using discrepancies you perceive in the wording of a paraphrase in a transcript of a radio interview to discredit the references supplied with this RfC, you are giving it too much consideration in your evaluation of this RfC question relative to the superb references included in support of the above RfC, and I respectfully ask that you reconsider your position. I believe you have an excellent opportunity here to show leadership in support of more broad understanding among our collaborators of the appropriate application of our neutrality pillar. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone here has shown great deference to neutrality. I do like accurate data and believe that we should be as accurate as possible. I would suggest that if we are to be accurate we should give the improtant detail. If both the WaPo and NPR refs say that two orgs gave almost $44 million, why don't we adjust the RfC to meet what the refs say? I'd be supportive of that. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion of including additional detail from these excellent sources. The proposed content is a succinct summary of the reliable sources. You state that you would prefer "...from Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and TC4 Trust" to "...from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers" May I respectfully ask, might your preference be in part because the RfC proposed content mentions the Kochs and your suggestion does not? Your suggestion introduces new proper nouns to the article, which are not strictly necessary to the proposed content, and would require additional context for clarity for our readers. I know you would not make a suggestion that deliberately makes our article less clear. Given your expressed interest in increased detail drawn from our reliable sources, may I respectfully ask, might you support:

"...from from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers, including the now defunct TC4 Trust, the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the major funding arm of the network, and the Phoenix-based Center to Protect Patient Rights, a major funder of conservative groups in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles."

I look forward to collaborate with you on adding additional detail from these excellent sources to our articles. Respectfully I ask again that you reconsider your position on the RfC proposed content in light of the RfC proposed references and in light of your stated commitment to a fair summarization of reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Comatmebro: Thank you for your comment. Thank you for citing specific policy. As you know, our reasons are more important than our votes. May I respectfully ask, could you please elaborate on what you feel is unclear about the connection of the sources to the subject of this article? Could you please elaborate on your feeling that the proposed content is synthetic? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the connection is unclear because there is only once source supporting the 44$M statement. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. May I ask, how does the striking agreement between the sources make unclear to you the connection between the sources and the subject of this article? All the sources unambiguously, explicitly state "Americans for Prosperity." The content proposed in the RfC is supported by four references that include three high quality editorial boards. For Wikipedia purposes, we have three sources. The $44M figure was reported by all three editorial boards. The acknowledgement of The Washington Post by FactCheck and the National Journal does not mean the editorial boards at Annenberg Public Policy Center and the National Journal looked the other way, and it does not mean there is only one source. In terms of verifiability, The Washington Post alone is sufficient. May I ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for your claim that content on Wikipedia must have more than one source? My impression is that much of Wikipedia has only one source. Here, even if it were one source, which it obviously is not, that one source would be The Washington Post. Do you have an issue with The Washington Post? FactCheck and the National Journal support the verifiability and noteworthiness of an already very highly reliable source. As you know, a version of this content was posted for comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, linked above, and no commenter there mentioned your theory that the sources are not connected to the subject of this article, and no commenter there mentioned your theory that there is only one source, and no commenter there mentioned synthesis. Please review the previous reliable sources noticeboard discussion linked above in the RfC and please reconsider your position on the sourcing. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

National Journal cites the same WaPo article as everyone else. KC Star isn't an article it's a "Letter to the editor" in which one "Robert Russell" from "Kansas City" plagiarizes the WaPost story (I will ask them to yank that unreliable copyright vio). NPR statement by interview host doesn't match the wording. --DHeyward (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC) (moved from survey section) Hugh (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

NPR is sloppy and as interview it should be discounted. First, NPR says "In 2012" not "2012 election cycle". the tax returns are available and in 2012, AFP took in only $115 million. 2011 has to be added to get to $140 million of the RFC [49][50]. Second, nearly $44 million and over $44 million are not the same and given the discrepancy by year, I don't think they are reliable as they are off cuff umbers to generate conversation, not accurate reflections of accounting. If anything, they big takeaway is that no one knows the exact numbers as is stated in nearly all the sources. --DHeyward (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not the privilege of editors to try and refute/debunk what sources say, which is all your comment amounts to. If you disagree so strongly with a source, you are welcome to write an article and get it printed by a reliable publication which can then be used to combat what sources say. However, this would remove you from the discussion since it would be a conflict of interest. Until then, reliable sources will not be "discounted" due to your own OR arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the main value of the NPR report cited in the comments is not toward verification, rather if anything perhaps toward noteworthiness of the proposed content, and that's why it is not included among the references in the above statement of the question of the RfC; please help us all focus on the RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Please move your comment on one of your colleague's statement from the survey section to this threaded discussion section. No one jumped on your statement. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

When reliable sources (with approximately the same degree of reliability) disagree, we include all or none. Since the Washington Post reporter and the NPR reporter have comperable creditability, and we have not seen any source commenting on either one, we must include both statements (without noting the contradiction) or neither. I side with neither. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that NPR simply made a simple mistake in their reporting. That doesn't negate other sources who did not make the same mistake.- MrX 04:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

... on the other hand, NPR was probably referring to this this and this which does show $44 million, while Washington Post did say more than $44 million, and referred to the 2012 election cycle.- MrX 04:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no disagreement between the refs in the RfC. The $44M and $140M figures were published by all three editorial boards of the refs in the RfC. The agreement is compelling. Furthermore, there is no disagreement between the refs in the RfC and the NPR transcript. The Washington Post carefully specifies the period of their study as the 2012 election cycle, which thanks to AFP includes late 2011, and the scope of their study as the network of donors, and reports "more than $44M"; NPR specifies the year 2012 and two organizations and reports "almost $44M." Please move your comment on one of your colleague's statement from the survey section to this threaded discussion section. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I seriously urge anyone reading this, and in particular the closer, to analyze the "one source" claim that some of the participants in this RFC are making critically. I don't question that many of the sources which make the "$44 million" claim can be linked back to the initial investigative report by Matea Gold of the Washington Post. But this does not mean that sources which recognize & repeat this claim are somehow the "same" source, or that the claim itself is less valid.

Just because multiple sources contain the same information does not make them "one source," and if anything the repetition of facts uncovered by Gold in other (reliable, high-quality) sources speaks to the weight, reliability, and significance of her reporting. You might as well argue that half of what's been written about Watergate is "one source" because it repeats claims originally made by Woodward and Bernstein.

Also, the attempt to make something out of a discrepancy in the exact amount of funds being reported (ie, was it just over or just under 44 million) is an obvious red herring. All of the sources report a figure of approximately $44 million, and that is the salient, indisputable fact here. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Polmandc: The content proposed in the RfC is supported by four references that include three high quality editorial boards. In Wikipedia terms we have three sources. The $44M figure was reported by all three editorial boards. FactCheck and the National Journal citing The Washington Post is acknowledgement, it does not mean the editorial functions at Annenberg and the National Journal went on vacation, and it does not mean there is only one source. In terms of verifiability, The Washington Post alone is sufficient. FactCheck and the National Journal support the verifiability and noteworthiness of an already very highly reliable source. Please review the previous reliable sources noticeboard discussion linked above in the RfC and please reconsider your position on the sourcing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Polmandc: Last month a version of this content was posted for comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Americans for Prosperity funding proposed addition from Washington Post. No commenter there mentioned your theory that there is only one source. Please review the previous reliable sources noticeboard discussion and reconsider your position on the sourcing. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As one of the people who replied to that noticeboard request, the question, "is this really just one source" was not asked. It is clear that the WP is generally a reliable source. You might be able to argue the fact has more merit by pointing out the 3rd and 4th sources who decided it seemed reasonable enough to repeat the claim. That the WP reporter made the claim twice doesn't mean much. Please don't imply something that was not asked or implied in the noticeboard discussion. Clearly the issue has been mentioned here and should not be dismissed. As an outsider I see you working very hard to get a single line into the article based on the basis that "it is reliable". That doesn't mean it has way you wish to include adds value to the article. As presented I see it as a single line that begs a question and I think the coatrack comments are probably legitimate. I think you need to make a case for why the comment is of merit and why it shouldn't be seen as coatracking, non-neutral POV, etc. Concentrate on answering those questions and I think you will have a stronger case for inclusion. That would probably be a new discussion since the phrasing of the included text would have to change. I hope that helps you come up with a proposal that meets with sufficient support. Again, this is my outsider POV.Springee (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The source and the quote meet WP's reliability and verifiability standards. Therefore, it has every right to be included into the article. Now, if you or others want to argue that it doesn't deserve to be included, then the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that it violates another standard which is why it shouldn't be included. An argument for coatracking hasn't been substantiated. There is a section in this article that is labeled "Funding" and this information is exactly what the section addresses. Where it gets its money from and the quantity of that funding is not an attempt to shoehorn irrelevant information into the article about an unrelated topic. Even more relevant is the fact that multiple reliable sources put emphasis on the funding of AFP and its connection to Koch Industries, and, therefore, the article should reflect what those reliable sources say about the matter.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As I'm not trying to edit the article I'm not sure I need to do anything. I don't think just showing that something is from a reliable source is sufficient to merit inclusion but if there is a Wikipedia guideline that says otherwise I will be wiser if you can provide a link. Springee (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here you can find information about how to contribute to Wikipedia, which then directs to the five pillars and other policies regarding making contributions.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I see two sections which may be of value in answering my question, possibly three. The first two would be WP:NPOV and possibly WP:OR. The inclusion of that single sentence might beg the question and thus lead the reader to a conclusion that is not supported or referenced to a source. If that conclusion isn't supported then I would take that to be an WP:OR issue. If the source does support it then it still might be WP:NPOV. I think others have claimed that and I'm not sure Hugh has sufficiently responded to those concerns. The other issue pillar might be WP:NOT. While I appreciate the link, it hasn't answered my question. Springee (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: I think you need to be more specific. What is the conclusion that you're suggesting the source might not support? Fyddlestix (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see my earlier question. I haven't stated this is WP:OR. My question was how do we decide if a singular fact or sentence should be included even if we can find a single reliable source which says that single fact is correct? Scoobydunk provided a link as an answer but having read it I don't feel the question was answered. The comment about WP:OR was speculation on my part, not a claim of it. I apologize if it came off as such. That said, I do think that a reader, seeing only that sentence might be left to jump to their own conclusions. That might be an issue with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think this is something Hugh should address. Springee (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: "a reader, seeing only that sentence might be left to jump to their own conclusions" Readers will not see "only that sentence". The proposed content is an addition to the "Funding" section. We should expect that readers, upon seeing the proposed addtion, will jump to the conclusion that the subject of this article raised $140M in the 2012 election cycle, and of that, more than $44M came from a network of donors organized by the Koch brothers. Sorry if this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: The allegations of coatracking and non-neutral POV are clearly meritless here if you actually look at what reliable sources say. Have a look at Aquillion's sources here and at how reliable, academic sources treat the subject. (those are just some examples, I could cite a lot more if needed). As you can plainly see, the vast majority of reliable academic and media sources focus on almost nothing but the financial links between AFP and the Koch brothers, and very nearly all of them identify the group as "Koch funded" or "Koch linked" or as the "Koch brother's" group (or some variant thereof). To anyone with even a passing familiarity with what the reliable sources actually say, the idea that this information and sources is undue, coatracking, or not consistent with NPOV is frankly laughable. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Academic References
References

Thanks for the reply. In that case I would suggest that the sentence needs to be better integrated into the article. It currently has little context and thus the reader is not told what to think of the information. That is an issue an WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. This has been my primary concern since I replied to the neutrality noticeboard topic. Springee (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE Exists to discourage/bar exhaustive or excessive lists/compilations of information. I could see it applying if HughD was trying to list how much money the Koch's donated every year, or put in a table of AFP's funding or something. But adding one (clearly notable) stat, which multiple articles refer to, and which reliable sources make clear is not UNDUE, is - in my opinion - hardly the kind of thing that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was written to rule out. I recognize we may disagree on that, but personally I don't see how that policy applies at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable but I think the text needs to be integrated into the article. Again, just stating it begs too many questions. The articles which originally mentioned the donations would have had a context. That context should be carried into the article. I think Hugh can answer the questions I'm asking and the entry will be better for it.Springee (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"just stating it begs too many questions" I'm sorry that you find the proposed content so confusing. It is straightforward. With all due respect to your editorial prowess, have you noticed that the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the National Journal both decided to include the proposed content, pretty much as is, without re-iterating the entire Washington Post report. Thank you for your support for adding additional relevant content from this and other sources. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Please support this proposed content. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, can you please be more specific about what you see as the appropriate application of our WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy to the above proposed content? I do not see any song lyrics or excessive listing of statistics in the proposed content. Please be more specific. Thank you. The content proposed by this RfC question is discriminant. The Washington Post, the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and the National Journal all thought it was noteworthy to report to their readers the magnitude of the support of Americans for Prosperity in the 2012 election cycle. We can, too. Context for the above proposed content in the article is already more than adequate, including the role of the Kochs in the founding and funding. The above proposed content states nothing other than the proposed content. Please help us all focus on the above proposed content here in this RfC discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Many of the sources speak to how AFP is a sort of front organization to represent the Koch family's businesses interests regarding the environment and climate change. I'm sure we can provide that context so the reader knows EXACTLY the reason why academic sources and other reliable sources bring attention to these details.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Polmandc: Please see our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS:

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.

Please let us know if you have any questions on our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS. Please update your statement of position to reflect your understanding of our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS. Hugh (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Polmandc: Above in your brief statement of position you wrote "single sourced, only one source." How do you reconcile this position with our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post is reliable and reputable, and only one source.--Polmandc (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. May I ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for opposing the above propose content? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: Please help us all focus in this thread on the above RfC question. Your comments on other subjects, other possible content, and possible future RfCs, and your expression of concern about what the article might become, are inappropriate here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel: Do understand that your argument primarily consists of red herring arguments and original research attempts to refute what reliable sources say. Wikipedia is suppose to reflect what the strongest reliable sources say, not what you have to say about reliable sources. To combat reliable sources you need to present your own reliable sources of equal reliability to contend with the claims being made. Your own OR interpretation of the numbers behind AFP's financing are irrelevant.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia guidelines help decide the information is of merit? A reliable source might tell us they use a janitorial service instead of hiring janitors. What guideline do we use to tell if such information is of merit?Springee (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Merit is established by Wikipedia Guidelines regarding WEIGHT. If a subject receives an appropriate amount of coverage in reliable sources and is relevant, then it deserves to be included into articles. This is how we establish the merit of articles when they're first made to begin with. All of the subsequent information should be covered in reliable sources. Clearly there are numerous articles and sources that discuss Koch Industries, so a WP article about Koch Industries exists. Clearly there are numerous sources that discuss the funding behind Koch Industries, therefore a section regarding "funding" exists. Finally, there are numerous sources, including academic sources, that speak to Koch Industries' role in funding AFP and how prevalent they are to the initial funding of AFP, therefore that information also deserves inclusion. Those reliable sources give information/claims/facts/opinions merit through their coverage, we aren't the ones who establish "merit" we simply write the article to reflect what the reliable sources say about the subject.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: Primarily? I think Inigo Montoya would have something to say about that. Most of what I wrote is not an opinion at all. Rather, it was the restatement of facts from very sources we're discussing. To your point on refuting it: nothing truly can "contend with the claims being made" because the claims being made are never actually defined, and can therefore technically describe literally any group. Ostensibly there is some "link", but without saying how close or what kind of link, there is no real value in including this statement, is there? What does it actually mean? What are readers supposed to take away from that statement? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Most of what I wrote is not an opinion at all", this is a strawman argument because red herring arguments and OR arguments are not limited to opinion. This RFC is to discuss the inclusion of information as presented by numerous sources. Instead of discussing policies relevant to establishing its inclusion, you decided to try and debunk/refute those articles with your own OR arguments. That would be the equivalent of trying to debunk multiple scholarly works speaking to the Earth being round by you saying "nu-uh, because XYZ". Your arguments are not relevant to what those sources actually say and it's not our responsibility as editors to try and debunk what sources say. That's why your response was primarily a giant red herring argument. Also, a number of those sources articulate the "link" behind Koch Industries and AFP as describing AFP as a sort of front to push climate denialism and anti-regulation to benefit their funding companies' bottom lines.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel: "search of the page for "Koch" already yields several results (87, a present, including refs)," Your plea to be careful with statistics early in your statement of your position seems to be undercut by your assertion late in your statement that the article includes 87 references to "Koch." Your statistic includes titles of reliable source references, and excerpts from reliable sources included in the references. Of the 87, perhaps a handful are in the body of the article. You do well to remind reviewers of this RfC discussion that reliable sources include extensive coverage of the relationship between Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers, and that the coverage in the body of this article so severely under-represents reliable sources so as to be grossly non-neutral and a serious embarrassment to our project. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: Yes, I said "including refs". My statistic is infinitely better defined than the one we're discussing. Do the refs added to the article proportionally reflect all available reliable refs on the topic? So we're all on the same page, what percentage of the article, in your opinion, should discuss the influence of the Kochs in order to avoid further embarrassment? And rather than criticizing the figure I think I was adequately transparent about, how would you respond the main questions I pose in my comments? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"what percentage of the article, in your opinion, should discuss the influence of the Kochs in order to avoid further embarrassment?" Please help us all focus on the content proposed by the RfC question here in this RfC question discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: Yes, that is what I was attempting to do when I asked if you had any response to the questions I asked regarding this proposal. I just thought it would be rude and confusing of me not to respond to your comment about the coverage of the topic, which (I think) was the main point of your initial reply to my !vote. Thank you. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"this type of statistic" The $44M figure and the $140M figures are not statistics. They are raw numbers. They are dollar amounts. They are a key finding of an important investigative journalism report from The Washington Post. Are you perhaps labelling them as statistics to support your application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Hugh (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I follow:

sta•tis•tic (stə-tĭsˈtĭk)
n. 1. A numerical piece of information.

But in any case, I think that is somewhat beside the point. Is your argument that we should indiscriminately include raw numbers as long as they are not "statistics"? If these figures are indeed a key finding, it should be no difficult task to explain their significance. So I ask again, what is it you wish readers to take away from this piece of numerical information, and why should this minority contributor, in particular, be singled out? Thank you. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What I expect does not matter, thanks. What we can expect readers to take away from the proposed content above, is that the subject of this article raised $140M in the 2012 election cycle, and of that, more than $44M came from a network of donors organized by the Koch brothers. Sorry if this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all the conscientious editors who are talking the time and energy to clarify the proper application of our neutrality pillar for our colleagues here in this request for comment discussion. The neutrality of this article is a concern of many editors. All editors are welcome to respond to the objections to the proposed content. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Thank you for your support. I agree with your overall assessment of the most of the opposing positions. As deficient as the opposing positions are, a few us are trying hard to work with our collaborators to enrich their understanding of our pillar of neutrality. Please continue your engagement with this request for comment discussion. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: Thank you for your eloquent support for an expanded funding section. Of course you support an expanded funding section, because you understand that the very definition of neutrality is with respect to coverage in reliable sources, and the funding of the subject of this article is widely covered in copious reliable sources. "Winning consensus for inclusion of one sentence doesn't necessarily move the ball forward on building a neutral funding section that gives due weight to each donor based on the proportion of the budget each donor has given." Every sentence we add that summarizes more significant viewpoints from more reliable sources is an improvement to our project. I'm sure you do not intent to hold an improvement hostage to the perfect. As the funding section clearly explains, we will never have a complete funding picture. Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, not proportional to some whole you prefer. A donor who contributed $1 could make it into Wikipedia if the contribution got enough coverage in reliable sources. Please reconsider your position on this RfC question in the light of your thorough understanding of our due weight policy. Hugh (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: "we cannot know if WP:DUE weight is given to the Koch contributions unless we have a handle on what other content is to be in the section" The RfC question is very clearly a one-sentence add. You know exactly what other content will go along side it: the current content. Please help us focus on the current RfC question here in this RfC threaded discussion area. Your expressed concerns about other possible future content are off-topic. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 02

RfC publicized at WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:ORN, and WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Hugh (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I think you have moved from simply informing to spamming the boards with this RfC. Your initial post was reasonable. The follow up round of postings on the 17th looks like you are simply unhappy with the outcome of the RfC and thus you are hoping for a different outcome the second time. The third time is almost certainly a violation of the guidelines regarding spamming and cross posting. In addition to needlessly updating every possible legitimate noticeboard, you also posted in unrelated article talk pages, [[51]] [[52]][[53]] [[54]]. I would suggest you revert those edits. Springee (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion. Please refrain from comments on editor behavior in this RfC threaded discussion. Other venues are available to you for your concerns regarding editor behavior, including but not limited to user talk pages. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There clearly is not a consensus to add your proposed material. Cross posting and spamming to get more eyes here is against the notification guidelines. If you do not chose to voluntarily close the discussion it will be posted to WP:ANRFC. It would be best to admit you couldn't get consensus this time and move on to the next edit. Springee (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Your one-on-one comments to a colleague and comments on editor behavior are off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. This RfC has been and will continue to be publicized in conformance with WP:RFC and WP:Discussion notices. This RfC will have an administrative close after 30 days, that is, 6 August 2015. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, my one on one comments to other editors are not related to this topic. What is related to this topic is your failure to conduct this WP:RFC within the site guidelines. Those guidelines do not allow for repeated posting of notices just because you are unhappy with the answers you are currently getting. We would thank you in advance for cooperating with site guidelines when soliciting editors. So far I don't believe you have. Springee (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Your speculation as to the motives of your colleagues is off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Please assume good faith. Please refrain from disrupting this RfC threaded discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, please show that you aren't acting in bad faith by following RfC guidelines. Springee (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a comment on WP:ANRFC in an attempt to have a third-party administrator close out this RfC. Please let this comment serve as a notice to all participating editors that I have requested that this RfC be closed by an uninvolved admin. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is currently marked as being a part of four WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism, and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. I find it a bit odd, to say the least, that the RFC has been posted at just three of four of those projects. Can anyone guess the missing one? Ah, WikiProject Conservatism! Interesting! Yet the RFC has somewhat randomly been posted to the Citizens United v. FEC talk page, while being omitted from the WikiProject talk page of a project that the page actually falls under. Interesting oversight. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of wide, diverse community feedback on this request for comment. Your assistance in publicizing the RfC in complaince with WP:RFC and WP:Discussion notices is welcome. Template:please see is useful. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I find this to be an example of canvassing, egregious and inappropriate. Notifications are supposed to be spare and not lobbying to tee up specific responses. This RfC should be ended it is becoming so poorly handled. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Hugh has engaged in selective notifications that appear to have a canvassing angle. Luckily, in this case the problem is easily remedied by posting a note at WikiProject Conservatism. I'll also note that just because that WikiProject is conservative doesn't mean its members have a conservative bent. I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your concerns regarding editor behavior including but not limited to user talk pages. Your comments on editor behavior are off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Please refrain from disrupting this RfC threaded discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually my comment here was quite on-topic and constructive, not disruptive, and your unwillingness to acknowledge that isn't helpful in the least. Just look at the army of haters you've collected in the last few months. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your one-on-one comments to a colleague and comments on editor behavior including but not limited to user talk pages. Your one-on-one comments to a colleague and comments on editor behavior are off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Please refrain from disrupting this RfC threaded discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Class B?

Because of the revert to a POV version of the article by Viriditas, and all the requests by HughD for various extensive changes to the article (on multiple message boards), this article clearly cannot be considered stable enough for class B. To avoid edit wars, I'm not going to change it. This is independent of POV concerns. I would think any editor conversant with the rating guidelines would agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, stability is not a requirement for Class B. NPOV is, though, and we all agree the article fails NPOV, even though we don't agree where. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, members of the various Wikiprojects would objectively rate the article according to their respective quality criteria. That said, I have no objection to resetting everything to C class until we can reach consensus on more of the disputed content.- MrX 21:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. X Capitalismojo (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits on 7/22

I reverted edits made today by Hugh. I am writing this post to justify my reversion of those edits. There is still an outstanding RfC proposed by Hugh for this page, as well as several discussion topics that are still being commented on that relate to several edits made to the page over the span of the last few months. I would like to see the outstanding issues resolved before adding any additional content to the page. If anyone has an comments on this, or issues with my reversion, please feel free to post it here. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A open RfC does not halt improvements. Do you have any specific policy or guideline support for one or more of your reversions? I thought your justification for your reversions at article talk might make some reference to specific policy or guideline and to specific content. Hugh (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted part of the "undoing". I recommend Comatmebro and other editors take a look at WP:OWN, editors do not require your approval whether it's stated explicitly or implicitly through another process in which you're involved, like "Wikiproject X".Scoobydunk (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would support reverting HughD's recent changes as they currently stand but feel an argument can be made to keep the added information. The supporting article is dated almost a full year before the 2012 elections. What is the "biggest" at that point may be insignificant as of October 2012 thus the early date of the article draws the notability of the claim into question. The single sentence Hugh added doesn't make the early nature of the claim clear. That could lead readers to a false conclusion about the relative size of the campaign (WP:SYNTHESIS via inference). An argument for notability can be made if the campaign was still one of the biggest as of election time. That would require a reference dated closer to or after the election. Springee (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I see some merit in this rebuttal. It can easily be solved by qualifying the addition with the date the statement was made in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

At least it gets closer to showing merit. If someone else showed that by the standards later 2012 ad campaigns it wasn't that large (a large wave before the tsunami) then the merit should be questioned. The better solution is to show the size of this campaign vs later ones. If it still stands out then the merit is much stronger. Springee (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The date the stmt was made Jan 2012 was in the deleted & restored content, and is currently in the article, please see. January is what a decade ago most Americans would have considered early in a national election cycle, but thanks in part to the subject of this article, spending on advertising in election cycles at scale is earlier and earlier. The subject of this article's role in election cycles starting earlier and earlier is a significant aspect of its notability. It is a significant aspect of the noteworthiness of the content that The Washington Post noted the scale of the attack a full ten months before election day. It is not an issue with the content it is exactly its significance. Hugh (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The current entry doesn't make it clear why it has merit. Based on the text it appears that the reason for merit is simply the size of the ad campaign "up to that point" without knowing when "that point is". Now it appears that you are arguing the merit is due to this campaign pushing up election cycle spending. I might have missed where the article made that claim. If that is the merit does that belong in this article or in an article about overall campaign spending and the way the campaign season is getting longer? Does that raise issues of coatracking or synthesis? Springee (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"without knowing when "that point is"." The date the statement was made January 2012 is the prefix clause of the sentence. I'm sorry this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, it is a clear sign that you are editing in bad faith to add the date AFTER I made that comment and then reply as if the date were in the article when I made my above post. Furthermore your edit does not address my concerns regarding notability. Formal apology to Hugh for the above. I was the one who missed the Jan 2012 date when I wrote the post time stamped 21:22.Springee (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks, no prob Hugh (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Can either of you clarify how my revert is any different from the revert done by Hugh only July 1st? He stated in his summary, "active talk page thread on neutraity in progress; please do not remove the tag until this issue is resolved, thank you very much." If you had an issue with removing a tag on July 1st because of the discussion going on on the talk page, how does adding more content to the article resolve that issue? You can argue that you are adding "improvements" to the article, but its already been made very clear that every edit you make has to be taken with a grain of salt, and reviewed by every editor that has disagreed with your POV for the last few months. You are simply making more work for everyone at an inappropriate time. You've done a great job in the past, on this article and others, of proposing the content you add in the talk page BEFORE posting it - allowing editors to provide feedback before any additional content is added. Here you did not do that, which is disappointing to say the least. If you'd like a specific policy cited as justification, I will go with WP:DEPE on this one, specifically the section titled "Failure or refusal to "get the point." "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting." These additional edits made by you today are simply a waste of time while we hash out the debates going on on the talk page. Why not propose the addition of this content on the talk page when the RfC and "Request Rollback" sections are done being debated? Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"how my revert is any different" How your revert is different? Really? OK. The 1 July revert restored the NPOV article hat while multiple editors were actively involved in multiple talk page discussion threads regarding neutrality while your recent revert deleted article content and reliable source references. I hope that helps. But why do you ask? Hugh (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is your idea that anyone who adds a NPOV hat to an article may not make improvements to the article? Hugh (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in time traveling, nor correcting every mistake on every article ever written. I am now involved in this article/discussion through the NPOV noticeboard, so that should be enough to clarify my actions since my involvement. Also, your reference to WP:DEPE is not applicable because this is a new piece of information that hasn't gone through a discussion process, to my knowledge. If you can actually show where this piece of information has gone through dispute resolution and a clear consensus was achieved, then I'd certainly reconsider my position. However, if you can't, your reference to WP:Depe amounts to nothing more than "we told you before to get our permission before editing, now stop" which, like I said, can easily be seen as wp:own.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe an editor should be banned from an article, there are processes here for that, but bulk reverting is not it. Hugh (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to wait on adding the content so we can handle one piece of content at a time. The neutrality argument is still going on on the talk page, and the RfC has not yet been closed, so why add more potentially debatable content into the mix? To me it seems less like an attempt to improve the article and more like an attempt to draw other editors into additional content unrelated to the actual issues currently being discussed throughout several different threads on the talk page...which is exactly what this thread is... Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your basis in policy or guideline for your request that all improvements be halted until the RfC closes? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I cited WP:DEPE as my basis in policy or guideline for my request that all improvements be halted until the RfC AND additional disputes (i.e. every threaded discussion that has been commented on in the last five days) are resolved. You've gotten upset in the past that editors did not respond to your comments about specific content added, I am simply asking that you either wait until disputes and the RfC are resolved to add the content, or propse adding the content on the talk page so consensus on the material can be met before it is added to the page. That way, we and other editors don't have to go back and forth reverting each other. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what part of WP:DEPE you believe may be the basis for insisting that all improvements to an article be halted if an RfC is open? Hugh (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A point of clarification for anyone reading this thread: Please note I am arguing that improvements be halted on the article with an open RfC AND unresolved disputes throughout the talk page.

More specificity on my take on WP:DEPE as it relates to your recent edits, and all of your collective edits as a whole on this article (policy guidelines italicized, my comments follow thereafter):

• Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." I think this makes it pretty clear that WP:DEPE does not only pertain to "newly added content" - there is much more going on here than my revert of your edits today and you know that.

• It is essential to recognize patterns of disruptive editing. Our edit warring policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts they constitute a pattern that does violate policy. Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act. Nevertheless, a series of edits over time may form a pattern that seriously disrupts the project. My argument for reverting your edits is that your edits over time have formed a pattern of disruptiveness - that doesn't necessarily mean your edits are bad, or not done in good faith, rather that a more cautious approach needs to be taken by you, an experienced editor of wikipedia, when you are attempting to add new information to this page.

• Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption is grounds for blocking, and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either through the Arbitration Committee or by a consensus. I supported this guideline when I stated earlier, "To me it seems less like an attempt to improve the article and more like an attempt to draw other editors into additional content unrelated to the actual issues currently being discussed throughout several different threads on the talk page...which is exactly what this thread is..."

• Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive. You've been accused of edit warring on this page in the past, while your edits may be in good faith, your overall pattern of edits is disruptive.

• Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article. This goes towards your whole "kill them with kindness" attitude that several editors have commented on in prior posts on this talk page.

I hope that is sufficient! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what part of WP:DEPE you believe may justify your insistance that all improvements to an article be halted if an RfC is open? Hugh (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I just did that...I am not arguing that improvements to this article by all editors be halted, I am simply asking that YOU specifically hold off on additional edits until content disputes and the RfC that you are involved in are resolved on the talk page.That way, we can deal with one issue at a time instead of bouncing around between all of these different threaded discussions. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe an editor is disruptive and should have edit restrictions, there is a process for that here, please report them; but if you won't, please understand that reverting that editor's edits is not the way to go. Hugh (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk Could you clarify the following for me? "Your reference to WP:DEPE is not applicable because this is a new piece of information that hasn't gone through a discussion process, to my knowledge." I am reading and re-reading DEPE and can't find anything that states the policy is only applicable to "new pieces of information added to an article." The way i interpret the first sentence of the policy is that it applies to an article, edits, and comments as a whole. You also noted that no discussion has taken place yet, therefore WP:DEPE cannot apply, The whole reason for posting this thread and reverting the edits was to say "hey, I appreciate these edits, but can we maybe wait a little bit to start adding more stuff so we can discuss this in more detail?" You're right, i cannot show you where this content went through dispute resolution because one has not been created yet. There are several other outstandingg disputes that need to be resolved before adding another into the mix, IMO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

comatmebro WP:DEPE says "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." This is what WP:DEPE speaks to and no where has the information the Hugh just added to the article been a part of a previous consensus. So Hugh is not violating/ignoring a previous consensus when he adds entirely new information unrelated to other disputes to the article. There, WP:DEPE does not apply. You can interpret anything how you want, but that doesn't change what the policy says and/or what the meaning of words. Furthermore, I didn't argue that WP:DEPE was "only applicable to 'new pieces of information added to an article.'" So this is a strawman argument because I claimed the opposite of that, which is true. WP:DEPE pertains to a consensus that has already been made that someone continuously ignores, and you just admitted that there was no consensus for the information Hugh just added, that you removed. I'd also like to take this moment to address the fact that you just implicitly accused Hugh of disruptive editing for adding a new piece of reliably sourced information to a WP article that didn't violate a previous consensus. I'd advise against this approach because it can easily be seen as bad faith. Lastly, "No" those other disputes don't need to be "resolved" before adding completely unrelated information to the article. It actually doesn't even need to be resolved before adding in the disputed information, but that can be seen as disruptive if the person is ignoring discussion and continuing ahead with action. So far, Hugh hasn't demonstrated ignoring any of the numerous of discussions that he's been engaged in.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I understand what you are saying and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. The one thing I will say about your argument here is that at no point in time do you address my comments about Hugh's cumulative behavior on this article and his comments on the talk page - the WP:DEPE guidelines that states "Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive" is also never address in your response, and in all honesty it is the focal point of my argument here. If you want to switch my argument around and try to make content specific thats fine. I think you know what I am trying to articulate here, and maybe I've simply come up short in my citation of specific policies and guidelines of wikipedia. All that I am asking is that we hold off on adding new content to the article until the content already being discussed on the talk page is taken care of. Again, I politely ask that we handle one piece of content at a time so that all editors can wrap their brains around everything that is going on with the recent edits made to this article, and the several discussions topics still going on on the talk page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please consider your request denied with this comment. Please take your request to an appropriate forum for pursuing edit restrictions. Please stop discussing editor behaviour on an article talk page. This article talk page is for specific discussions of article content with respect to specific policy and guideline. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Hugh. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I did address your comments about Hugh's cumulative behavior and told you that it can easily be seen as "bad faith". That comment wasn't restricted to this most recent edit that you reverted, but to the fact that, in general, you're calling his editing disruptive. The WP:DEPE policy only mentions that to clarify how continuously editing against consensus can be disruptive, it does not speak to disruptive behavior overall. Furthermore, I needn't address his behavior overall because it's a red herring argument, which is disruptive to the improvement of an article. His behavior is not relevant to the fact that this most recent edit is substantiated by a reliable source and is relevant to article and section at hand.

I will say that I don't agree with all of Hugh's edits. The very first one I saw on the NPOV noticeboard was one regarding adding information about the size of Koch Industries, which I think does borderline on WP:COATRACK and doesn't merit inclusion. However, the bigger offense I see plainly evident is that a group of editors are clearly stonewalling the addition of relevant information that is reliably sourced. This group cites consensus, but can't supply any diff to a dispute resolution consensus and keeps spouting WP policies that clearly don't substantiate their objections. Scoobydunk (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you have made a conscious effort to prove that the material added is relevant and comes from a reliable source, and I appreciate that. I will drop the WP:STICK (for now) on this. In the past Hugh would propose content on the talk page first, allowing editors to dig into the relevant info and comment on it before it was added to the page. With everything going on on the talk page, I was hoping we could try and do the same thing for content moving forward. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Climate change organization ?

AFP is not a climate change group and should be removed the list of climate change organizations. Since the Koch brothers's primary business is oil, they may have used AFP to advance their opinions about global warming. But that's not the same thing as being an organization devoted in part or in total to the scientific study of the changing climate. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this article is devoted in part to defeating regulatory responses to climate change through lobbying legislators and grass roots lobbying. Category:Climate change organizations based in the United States is not limited to organizations involved in the scientific study of climate change; other types of organizations are also included. For example, several organizations involved in advocacy related to climate change are included in the category; specific examples include the Sierra Club, the Cooler Heads Coalition, the Heartland Institute, Vote Climate U.S. PAC, Climate Hawks Vote, Forward on Climate, Young Voices on Climate Change, and others. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't address the point that this isn't a climate change org. The other organizations all have a focus on the climate and environment. It is clear that AFP does not, that climate is way, way down the list of priorities. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rissa here too. It's not an appropriate category for this group. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"The other organizations all have a focus on the climate and environment." The category is climate change organizations in the US, not climate change and environmental organizations in the US. The Sierra Club and the Heartland Institute and others have diverse agendas including climate change and are included in the category. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

According to multiple reliable sources, and according to our article, the subject of this article played a key role in influencing the US policy response to climate change. AFP was important in creating the Tea Party movement and in encouraging the movement to focus on climate change. AFP's "No Climate Tax Pledge" campaign played a key role in turning back cap & trade in Obama's 1st term. AFP supports fossil fuel development, including expanding off-shore drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline, and opposes renewable energy tax credits. At the state level, AFP works to thwart and repeal renewable portfolio standards. AFP has announced plans to spend on negative advertising against political candidates who support environmental regulation in 2016. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No one seems to agree with this edit/cat. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Koch's primary political organization

In the lead we have a statement that AFP is the Koch's primary political organization. I think that is important in articles about the Kochs but it is undue in the lead of this article. It implies that it (AFP) is owned by or a mere tool and pawn of the Kochs when in fact they don't even give a majority of the funds. Yes they helped found the org and clearly remain active with it, no it is not "theirs". Capitalismojo (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed quite recently, above. It's also not undue: the vast majority of reliable sources actually do portray AFP as a tool/instrument of the Koch brothers. There's really no point trying to argue against that fact, since there are literally hundreds of newspaper articles, academic books, and other articles that make that link. Trying to argue that all those sources are somehow wrong because you personally think the numbers don't add up is original research. Please, let's call a spade a spade (and be consistent with what the reliable sources say) for once, shall we? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I recently found a mention of AFP in an academic book by Andrew Ross called Bird on Fire (about environmental problems in Phoenix, Arizona), in which the author makes the same point. Granted, all of these sources may be borrowing from each other, but each of them has a separate editorial staff for vetting, or, in the case of Ross's book, there is peer review, which should catch any egregious error, so I think the WP article is OK with labeling AFP as the Koches' primary political organization. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This does not meet the point. Yes, this is the main org where the Kochs are politically active. Fine. We all agree. That is an important point in their bios. This, however, is the article about AFP. The Kochs had a hand in founding the organization but it now has hundreds of thousands of members and donors. Our sources at this page make it explicit that they (the Kochs) are not the majority donors. That is not OR, that is what the refs say. Recall the discussion about the budget above, $44 million of $140 was from "Koch related" organizations (undefined/what ever that means). They clearly don't own this organization and implying that they do are naive, and is an unsupported conspiracy theory that doesn't belong in the lead. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The in-depth NY Mag article that Fyddlestix mentioned above is explicit that this idea that the Koch's own AFP is a charge thrown by critics. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You looking at data and then making a conclusion about most/least/whatever IS original research. You are drawing a conclusion based on your understanding of the data that is not explicitly stated by the source. Regardless, there are multiple sources that identify Koch as the founders of AFP and/or characterize the AFP as the Koch owned superpac to propagate their agenda. So there is no reason why it shouldn't be reflected in the article. If someone comes to this article and asks "What is the AFP?" then part of that answer is "A political superpac founded/used/owned by the Koch brothers". That's how numerous sources describe the AFP and it certainly deserves attention in the lead.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

May I please ask, why did you start a new section? Why did you not join your colleagues in working toward consensus by contributing to the recent thread Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Americans for Prosperity is the Koch's primary political advocacy group above on this very talk page? That thread above includes the content you object to and links to the sources and excerpts from the sources for the convenience of readers of this talk page and participants in the discussion. Hugh (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a different issue. I think it's entirely proper to include the well sourced info that this is the main organization that the Kochs' engage in for advocacy. What we have in the lead now is the implication that this is owned by the Kochs, that they are puppet masters. That is a rank conspiracy theory. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead, it is truly WP:UNDUE. From NY Mag referenced above: "Koch denies being directly involved with the tea party—“I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me”—but he and his brother Charles were being accused of supporting the group through an affiliated conservative organization. Rachel Maddow had effectively called Koch the tea party’s puppet master. “The radical press is coming after me and Charles,” he said. “They’re using us as whipping boys.” Capitalismojo (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I never referred to the NY mag piece, I was referring to the numerous academic sources I've already cited above. Now that you've brought it up, though, I'm wondering if you actually read the piece. You say that the article portrays the idea of AFP being the "Koch's" group as something "thrown by critics." But the same piece also says very directly (in the article's voice, as a factual statement) that "In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFP is now Koch’s primary political-advocacy group." Your interpretation of that particular source is very clearly incorrect. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the lead, thanks. Thank you for raising this at talk rather than deleting. Very clearly, the fact that the subject of this article is the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group belongs in the lede, first paragraph, second sentence, right where it is. Several political advocacy groups, sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, were founded by the Koch brothers, and several are noted as funded by the Koch brothers, but only one is notable for being characterized in multiple independent reliable sources as the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group. The status of the subject of this article as the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group is its one of if not the most notable aspect of the subject of this article. Furthermore, this characterization is not disparaging. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Our sources at this page make it explicit that they (the Kochs) are not the majority donors." Our article makes clear that characterizing the funding is necessarily incomplete. Our article makes no claim that anyone is the majority funder. In any case the issue of the identity of the majority funder is a different issue from the issue of being the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you understand that Koch denying involvement in the tea party movement is not the same as a denial of involvement with the subject of this article. In any case a first-person statement does not overrule reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"It implies that it (AFP) is owned by or a mere tool and pawn of the Kochs" Our article makes no such claims explicit or implied. Please help us all focus on actual article content here on this article talk page. Our lede states that the subject of this article is a non-profit orgranization and we can trust our readers to understand that that means that no one owns it. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"This, however, is the article about AFP." Yes, the subject of this article is Americans for Prosperity, and the subject of the sentence you are concerned about is also Americans for Prosperity: "it [Americans for Prosperity] is their primary political advocacy group." You've tried undue, disparaging, misleading, off-topic. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"That is an important point in their bios." We agree, the fact that Americans for Prosperity is their primary political advocacy organization should be included in the BLP of both David and Charles. Hugh (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)