Talk:Americans for Prosperity

Non-partisan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Snyder resources

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

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

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

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

Sourcing

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

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

External links

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

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

AFP and polifact

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

AFP and AFP Foundation – clarification needed

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

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

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

Tea Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct quotations

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

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

The lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too much detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's all take this pledge

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

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

May 2015 article size checkpoint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft lead

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revised draft of last two sentences of lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFP-intermediary-Cain transactions

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

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

Sources:

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

Proposed summarization:

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

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

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

Revised proposed summarization:

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

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

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

Merge "Influence" and "Tea Party" sections?

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

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

Explain the diff between AFP and the Foundation?

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

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

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

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

Due weight of property rights and patent reforms advocacy activities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caricatures

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

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

New discussion about the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too much credit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletions May 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee Fang

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicting accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Wisconsin collective bargaining" section too detailed?

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

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

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

Edit warring by HughD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

one of the most influential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for all of us . . .

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

Too much detail (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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