Talk:Americans for Prosperity

Koch Funding
A couple of editors have tried to remove a long-standing sentence about the initial funding of the organization. One editor attempted to cast it as something that liberals complain about. This is not in accord with WP:NPOV. I'm opening this section for discussion so that those editors might seek consensus for removing or significantly altering this material.- MrX 01:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Koch's involvement is discussed in the body of the article, which is appropriate, since they do have an involvement in this organization, but to place this in the lead is WP:UNDUE. While WP:OSE is sometimes not a valid argument, there needs to be consistency through the project about how aspects like this are covered. For example, the Wikipedia article on moveon.org doesn't mention that George Soros is the majority funder of that group. Or where does the funding for Black Lives Matter. Or on the right, the Federalist website.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? This is the single most WP:DUE piece of information for which AfP are notable. Even the Koch's seem to agree. The lead is supposed to be a summary of an article's most important contents. Is there a concern about the number of available sources, or the proportionality of discussion of the Koch's in the available sources that cover AfP? As it happens, I'm not editing out article on moveon.org or Soros, so I can't help there.- MrX 02:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ETA: It's very difficult to find any news coverage of AfP that does not prominently mention the Koch's.- MrX 02:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * News coverage in the US is skewed to the left (even the left-leaning PEW research group has documented this). Have you read this article. You make the claim, "This is the single most WP:DUE piece of information for which AfP are notable.", yet, in the article, this is no where near the level of being included in the lead, consisting of mentions in 3 of the 4 paragraphs (and not a majority of those paragraphs) in the very short funding section. Interesting that you address none of the other, more pertinent points I mention.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion that news coverage in the US is skewed to the left, but even if that's true, this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We simply need to follow sources. WP:NPOV requires that amount of coverage that a topic receives in an article should be proportional the amount of coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 02:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Onel5969: Why have you restored this nonsense: "Moreover, many on the political left have criticized the group's ties to businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch and David Koch."? And why have you leaned on WP:BRD as your justification? My edit restored the consensus version. Your edit restored the WP:BOLD edit. Kindly restore the consensus version, then seek a new consensus if you wish.- MrX 02:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with you removing the statement regarding the political left (although your statement above discloses your bias in this), it was part of a revert of the undue in the lead. And that wasn't the consensus. The discussion which was reached was no-consensus. The fact that you included it in a reverting of something under discussion is your issue, not mine. Please address the issues raised above, and not edit war.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not undue. I wasn't exaggerating in my last edit summary, there are literally hundreds of high-quality reliable sources that highlight the funding AFP receives from the Koch family as the single most important, defining characteristic of the organization. Here are a few examples, originally compiled by here
 * Factcheck: "Founded by billionaire businessman and conservative/libertarian political activist David Koch" is the first sentence.
 * National Journal: "Most of the political world knows the basics about AFP: It's funded in part by billionaire industrialists (and favorite Democratic villains) Charles and David Koch." Lists the fact that it was founded by the Koch brothers as the first thing everyone knows about it.
 * New York Times: "But he has a long way to go to catch up with the Koch brothers, whose own group, Americans for Prosperity,"
 * Washington Post: "One of the major players on the right is Americans for Prosperity, a group co-founded by conservative billionaire David Koch."
 * Washington Post: (describing the "Koch-backed network"): "Its main political organ, the free-market advocacy group Americans for Prosperity,"
 * Washington Post: "Americans for Prosperity, the on-the-ground wing of the network of conservative organizations spearheaded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch," First sentence again.
 * Kenosha News: "Americans for Prosperity — the conservative group funded by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch — is getting involved..."  First sentence again.
 * Huffington Post: "Americans for Prosperity — the main political arm of billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch"
 * The Hill: "The group, which is backed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch..." Second sentence.
 * Mother Jones: "On Monday Americans for Prosperity, the conservative nonprofit group founded by billionaire David Koch..." First sentence.
 * LA Times: "Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the panel signed a pledge distributed by a Koch-founded advocacy group — Americans for Prosperity..."
 * New York Times (Describing the Koch network.) "But as 3,000 activists, dozens of big donors and a gaggle of presidential aspirants gathered here for a pre-election conference held by the network’s flagship political organization, Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs’ political operation is confronting the anxieties of influence."
 * Wall Street Journal "But other groups – including Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit backed by the billionaire Koch brothers –"
 * Mother Jones: "At least half of the one-on-one sessions involved representatives of Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group founded by the Koch brothers and their top political adviser and strategist, Richard Fink,"
 * Politico: "David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity Foundation"
 * National Journal "David Koch Seeded Major Tea-Party Group, Private Donor List Reveals" (That's the headline.  They devoted an entire article to it.)
 * International Business Times "Money In Politics: The Companies Behind David Koch’s Americans For Prosperity". That's the headline, again.
 * Slate "In the past, Charles Koch and his allies have criticized Cato for lacking real, provable results. Since then, David has found tremendous success with Americans for Prosperity,"
 * New York Times "The one Koch-financed group mentioned by name at the meeting was Americans for Prosperity"
 * The Guardian "Americans for Prosperity, the rightwing campaign funded in part by the energy billionaires the Koch brothers," First sentence.
 * Given the strength of these sources, why are we (still) even having this debate? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See also all of these high-quality academic sources:
 * First sentence: "Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) is an antitaxation advocacy group founded in 2004 and financed by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries of Wichita, Kansas."
 * Theda Skocpol, Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (Oxford University Press) States that: "After the CSE breakup, Americans for Prosperity continued to enjoy direct funding and leadership through Koch Industries and the Koch brothers," p. 145.
 * Lawrence Rosenthal, Christine Tros Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party (University of California Press, 2012). States that AFP is “funded by the brother David and Charles Koch. Multibillionaire owners of the petrochemical conglomerate Koch industries, the brothers aggressively pursue the conservative vision of their father, who was a founding member of the John Birch Society.” p. 32. Also states that “Houston [Tea Party] organizers communicated with Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch family, to recruit speakers" p. 112.
 * Allan J. Cigler, Burdett A. Loomis, Anthony J. Nownes, Tony Nownes, eds. Interest Group Politics Calls AFP "David and Charles Koch’s organization Americans for Prosperity - perhaps the most influential organization in today’s conservative movement.” p 38. States that "if the TPM has generated a host of local organizations and substantial popular support, it has also received considerable backing from elite, national organizations, some of which long predated the movement’s 2009 emergence. In particular, right-wing groups FreedomWorks and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity worked within the TPM to extend their reach into a large new audience and prospective activists.”
 * The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (OUP, 2011) “Especially important are the roles played by the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks front groups in generating a significant portion of the ‘Tea Party’ and encouraging it to focus on climate change.”
 * Wendy L. Hansen, Michael S. Rocca, and Brittany Leigh Ortiz, "The Effects of Citizens United on Corporate Spending in the 2012 Presidential Election," The Journal of Politics, Vol. 77, No. 2 (April 2015), pp. 535-54. States that "the Koch brothers of the private Koch Industries created their own conservative Super PAC called Americans for Prosperity that spent $33,542,058 [in 2012]."
 * Nella Van Dyke, David S. Meyer, eds. Understanding the Tea Party Movement, (Ashgate, 2014). States that “When faced with the charge that the Tea Party movement really represents only the interests of its generous benefactors, the Koch brothers, Tea Partiers like to cite Goerge Soros, the billionaire currency speculator who has bankrolled political efforts for civil liberties generally. The easy equivalence is deceptive; it’s hard to see how decriminalizing drugs, for example, serves Soros’s business interests in the way relaxing environmental regulations supports the Kochs’ businesses; the scope and scale of the Tea Party’s dependence on large capital may indeed be unique.” 177. Also notes that “Koch and his allies created libertarian institutions to try to create a free market base to the Republican Party that counters its reliance on conservative evangelicals.  While the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity has accommodated the social conservatives, other institutions like the Cato Institute and Freedom Works appear less happy with conservative Christian elements powering parts of the Tea Party and promoting the anti-Muslim storyline.” 102.
 * The "undude" argument is obviously completely without merit, and the recent edits are completely inconsistent with what the vast majority of RS say about AFP. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're conflating undue with reliable sourcing. The long quote from a left-wing supporter is indicative of your bias. The other mentions are just that, mentions. And it is included in the article. And let me be clear, I don't think the comment which was added regarding left-wing bias belongs in the lead either. I'll remove it.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But rather than go back and forth, let's let other editors weigh in on this and re-address it in a week or so. Fair?  Onel 5969  TT me 02:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's try to leave editor's biases out of this. I would like to understand your understanding of WP:UNDUE. Your statement "You're conflating undue with reliable sourcing." has me puzzled. If you don't think that WP:DUEWEIGHT is about the amount of coverage in sources, then please explain how you think proper weight is determined.- MrX 02:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll thank you not to lecture me about bias when your own edits are so obviously inconsistent with how pretty much every reliable source available treats the subject of this article. FYI, I've raised this at NPOVN here. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, while I'm not sure which one you were referring to - all of those longer quotes are from peer-reviewed, academic publications - you can't dismiss them simply because you personally think the author's a "left wing supporter." Fyddlestix (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. It appears that both you and Fyddlestix posted virtually simultaneously. My remark regarding conflating was apparently directed at Fyddlestix, who posted the WP:WALLOFTEXT above. The lead is supposed to reflect the article as a whole. The amount of coverage regarding the Kochs' funding in the article does not merit a mention in the lead. Plain and simple. Your argument would hold weight if any mention of the Kochs' involvement in the organization were being excised from the article, but that isn't the case. They are a major contributor to the group, just as Soros is a major contributor to moveon.org, and media matters, and black lives matter. He is mentioned in the funding section on those pages (at least I think he is, I haven't checked), but isn't mentioned in the lead. And wonderful that Fyddlestix is now canvassing.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting to a noticeboard isn't canvassing, it's a perfectly acceptable (and encouraged) form of dispute resolution. See WP:SEEKHELP. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you get it's "encouraged". Definitely acceptable. Although going to it within 1 1/2 hours of a discussion on a talk page might be perceived as canvassing. Usually, disputes should be attempted to be resolved on article talkpages through WP:CONS.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report me for canvassing then, I think seeking outside input was perfectly reasonable given the fact that this page has a long-standing problem with people trying to scrub almost every mention of the Koch brothers (often claiming that their  edits make the page "more neutral") when in reality reliable sources place the Koch connection front-and-center almost without exception. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a laundry list of left-wing news sources mentioning the Koch brothers warrants mentioning the Koch brothers in the second sentence of the article. Like I said, news sources tend to cover aspects of organizations that are controversial. The media has no interest in simply reporting bland, uncontroversial AFP activities, while mentioning the Koch brothers is an easy way to grab attention. While news media have no obligation to be unbiased or provide due weight, Wikipedia does. And the fact is that the Koch brothers, while providing significant support to AFP, are not funding a majority of AFP activities. Is there any objective reason why the Koch brothers' involvement in AFP is more notable than Soros's and Steyer's involvement in left-wing groups? Mentioning the Koch brothers in the second sentence of this article seems like nothing more than an attempt to implicitly delegitimize the organization, and constitutes a blatant violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, look at the list of sources above. They're not all left-leaning; the list includes the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, National Journal, the IB times, and so on.  But beyond that my point is that virtually all mainstream coverage of the group puts their connection to the Koch brothers in the first sentence or so, often the headline.  It's one of the most notable things about them, so it belongs in the lead. To compile that list, I literally just went down the sources for the article at the time and compiled how prominently they mentioned the connection to the Koch Brothers; as far as I can recall (it was a while back), I didn't leave anything out.  Whether you think mainstream coverage of the organization is balanced against how whatever other groups you're concerned about are handled isn't the issue; we need to reflect how it's described in the sources, which seem to overwhelmingly make its link to the Koch Brothers central to its description. It is also extensively discussed in the body of the article; the first sentence of its description further down says it's their "primary political advocacy group", which probably belongs in the lead itself, and their names come up over and over again throughout the article.  This requires equally-prominent coverage in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)  --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is already at the NPOV noticeboard. The fact of who funds and operates an organization is never itself WP:UNDUE as long as it is reliably sourced, which it is.  The undue comes from any wording that an editor may associate with that fact.  Using left-wing twice, in a fairly derogatory manner, means you probably hold a non-neutral point of view about this topic.  We just cite what other sources say, as long as we stick to facts, this isn't an issue and certainly isn't undue.  Lipsquid (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an issue and it is undue. I still haven't seen evidence that AFP is primarily funded by the Koch brothers.  In fact, it seems there are several groups that fund AFP to a greater extent than the Koch brothers. This fact is too important to overlook. If we mention the Kochs in the lede, but not other sources that provide more funding than the Kochs, then I think that shows great political bias and a conscious effort to implicitly discredit AFP. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please actual read WP:UNDUE. It says nothing about providing evidence, which would violate the WP:OR policy anyway. The only thing that matters is the amount of coverage in reliable sources. The last two paragraphs of this section of the policy are clear:
 * Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
 * If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".
 * If you can find as many sources as presented above that discuss AfP's about other funding sources, then I have no objection to listing them in the lead as well.- MrX 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Given the number of sources that mention Koch funding it would seem hard to argue that such material shouldn't be in the lead. However, I think making Koch funding the second sentence can be seen as a either UNDUE and/or NPOV. Is the MOST signficant thing about the group that (if I recall correctly from last year) the Koch family is the largest, yet still minority, funder of the organization? Given that the majority of AfP's funds come from non-Koch sources, the things the group advocates/supports/promotes would be a more logically ahead of Koch funding in the lead. Reversing the order and putting emphasis on the Kochs without noting the group gets more money (combined) from non-Koch sources seems to make the article about the Koch's vs the AfP and their advocacy. I think this could be solved relatively easily by moving the Koch funding material to later in the lead.
 * As an aside, I feel like the article sprinkles the Koch name into way to many quotes and sections as if the intent is to taint the discussion of the groups actions etc. It reads a bit too much like an article that was cobbled together from the negative comments from RSs.  This reduces emphasis that could focus on adding context to the groups positions or answering if the groups positions are reasonable (again based on RSs).  It's a bit like reading an article that says a company did X "just to save money" while hinting that saving money is somehow a bad thing.  It would help the article to have more information on the validity of AfP's message vs who pays for it.  Springee (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * if the article's prose added by editors were to actually cast the fact that it is funded by the Kochs as a negative rather than just a fact. Then I would to agree with you and I encourage you to modify those sections.  If the prose does not cast the Kochs in a negative light, outside the criticism section, then it is merely an echo of what reliable sources say about the subject, which is what we are here to do.  Is any of the prose negative against the Kochs? if so that would probably be undue.  If you only feel that so many mentions are a negative, then I don't really see a problem.  Again, the majority of reliable sources tie these two subjects together, it isn't anyone's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH Lipsquid (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like the prose was added with an intent to give it a negative spin but that is as much a gut feel as anything else. Sometimes you read an article and it just gives you a vibe even though you can't pin a single strong example of a problem.  Regardless, it's not something I feel strongly about.  I do think it would be an improvement if someone who is more familiar with the sources would cut down on some of the examples of OVERCITE.  There are many examples of 4, 5 or even 6 sources being cited for one sentence.  I think some of this reference packing was due to a POV push last year.Springee (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think leaving it in the lead, but moving it later in the lead, after their policy objectives, is appropriate - since it is an advocacy organization, their policy objectives are most important. It is still a fact that the Kochs founded the organization and that the organization promotes their values, as discussed later in the article. That's neither good nor bad. They can do what they wish with their money in this country! They can buy a yacht or advocate for lower taxes and less regulation. No value judgment implied. It just is, and reliable sources are clear on this. No WP:SYNTH necessary. MisterRandomized (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most RS, and also the one tertiary source on AFP that I've been able to find (I linked it above) address the Koch connection within the first 2 or 3 sentences - ample evidence if this has been repeatedly linked above. The current level of emphasis in the lede is consistent with the majority of RS and entirely due.  I'm open to different wording, but opposed to any "demotion" of this content - the level if emphasis should be the same as in the RS.  Fyddlestix (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

David Koch died on Aug. 23, 2019. Brec (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like, at some point, someone removed the "primary political advocacy group" bit from the lead? I re-inserted it and reworded the first two sentences to place more emphasis on it.  Again, go over my review of the sources above - the Koch Brothers are by far the most significant aspect of the group in terms of coverage, with virtually all coverage mentioning them in the first sentence or referencing it solely in relation to them. Just saying it "receives funding" from them is completely insufficient and fails to capture what the article or its sources actually say. --Aquillion (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Leadership change
I came over to this article when I saw they had an abrupt leadership change in early December 2021 and I made those updates. This article has a lot of info about the goings-on at AFP really back more in the 2010-2014 period but not so much what they are currently up to (and I don't know what that is). It's tough when there's a nice long highly structured well thought out article like this to know how to do the more thorough updating it probably needs. Novellasyes (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Needs updating
A lot of the language in this article needs to be updated to reflect the fact that David Koch is dead (and has been for 4+ years). For instance, it doesn't make sense to describe this group as "the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group." We could simply change the tense to "was", but that doesn't seem accurate either since the group is still active and presumably one Koch brother is still involved. But "brothers" is dated. Marquardtika (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)