Talk:Americans for Prosperity/Archive 3

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

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

Proposed clause addition in bold:

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

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


 * This does not strike me as an improvement, I have looked at many similar articles at wikipedia and see no such formulation. It is, at the least, undue in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refer to policy and guidelines in support of your position, not other articles. Please help us focus on this article here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Capitalismojo. Not an improvement. Puts way too much weight on that detail and is potentially WP:COATRACKING DaltonCastle (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The "detail" that they are legally required to limit political activity is undue, but the "detail" that they are not legally required to disclose is not? How is that possible? The heart of the controversy that dominates reliable sources is exactly the extent of their political activity in conjunction with non-disclosure. Would you support removing the current lede content "As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors"? How are you not cherry picking the legal consequences of the chosen filing status of the subject of this article? Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely does not need to have more added, in fact, as per WP:UNDUE, there is an argument that it should be stricken from the lead, and the entire too-detailed discussion in the body of the article trimmed significantly, so as to comply with WP:NPOV. Onel5969 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "argument" that "the entire too-detailed discussion in the body of the article trimmed significantly" if you are familiar with coverage in reliable sources. Precisely what WP:DUE says is that coverage in a WP article is proportional to coverage in RS. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the proposed change. I fear this page is becoming a proxy war for disputes about campaign finance. My read of the sources is that AFP complies with existing IRS rules and regulations regarding tax-exempt public charities, but that a number of critics are bothered by this because they don't like the existing rules and regulations governing tax-emempt public charities. That's their prerogative, but it doesn't mean AFP is breaking any laws or skirting any regulations--it means some people don't care for the current campaign finance/IRS regulatory regime and would like to reform it. This page is not the proper place to air this significant and important dispute. Placing lots of material on the page about this dispute gives the reader the idea that it is somehow AFP's "fault" that there is controversy swirling about the laws governing tax-emempt charities. This is a deep-seated cultural/political dispute that supersedes any one organization. Airing it out here gives a "where there's smoke, there's fire" feeling to the page, leading a casual reader to likely think "gee, there is a lot of controversy here about tax-exempt charities and political spending...AFP must be doing something illegal or wrong." If there are actual legal cases where AFP has been found guilty of breaking IRS laws, we should include that. But I'm just seeing a lot of hemming and hawing with how AFP is seemingly taking advantage of existing laws. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please help us focus on the current content of this article here on this article talk page by kindly refraining from injecting your opinion about what the article might become. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the subject of this article is at the heart of a current public debate about the role of tax-exempt non-profits, so-called "outside groups," political advocacy groups that are not political action committees, and the role of disclosure in political speech. This dialectic dominates reliable sources on the subject of this article, and so is covered in the body WP:DUE, and in the lede. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "AFP must be doing something illegal" This comment is unwarranted and unfair to the many editors who have contributed to making very sure the article at no point accuses AFP of anything illegal in Wikipedia voice. Please help us focus on the current content of the article here on this article talk page and refrain from speculating about what a reader might think. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was comfortable leaving the brief summary of the legal implications of the filing status to the body. If memory serves you added ONE of the implications to the lede. If you were to self-revert your addition to the lede I would be comfortable dropping this proposal. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You added "As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors" to the lede, with the edit summary "Improve neutrality of lede with attribution and reason for criticisms." You added this with no discussion, even though there are collaborative threads on the lede on this talk page. Yes, it's true: AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors. RS says so and the body says so. I don't think it belongs in the lede. It is NOT the "reason for criticisms." There is no controversy around AFP's lack of a legal disclosure requirement. To support in our lede a summary which could be read as "some think AFP should disclose" is a severe misrepresentation of the body of the article and of vast RS. Only from a very pointed point of view could one familiarize themselves with RS on this subject and summarize it as "some wish AFP would disclose." The content we are attempting to summarize here in the lede is the controversy surround the extent of AFP's political activities, while enjoying the benefits of a tax-exempt non-profit, ONE of which is non-disclosure. If we were to mention ONE of the constraints on the operation of AFP flowing from their choice of filing status, the limits on political activity is much more informative in understanding the debate than the lack of a disclosure requirement. I give you credit that you understand this. Your addition to the lede was a cherry-pick of the relevant legal implications of the filing status. Your addition to the lede was not an improvement. We can repair the damage to the lede by expanding the legal implications or leaving them to the body. Hugh (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hugh continues to reference WP:DUE, ignoring one of the key elements: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." That single statement offers four separate ways that an article can be given a non-neutral POV by the inclusion of cited information, many, if not all, of which are in this article. Many of them have been brought up in prior discussions: it includes way too much depth of detail on minor issues (Koch brothers, tax law); in comparison to the rest of the article, there is way too much text devoted to funding; prominence of NPOV statements in the lead, thus giving those subjects prominence. Onel5969 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please help us focus in this thread on the above proposed content. This thread is not a general discussion of your interpretation of our neutral point of view pillar or your opinion on the overall neutrality of the article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Every editor so far disagrees with this proposed edit. However, I would like to commend Hugh for bringing it to talk in such a positive manner. This is the way edits are supposed to be discussed and debated in articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know I'm a little late to the conservation -- However, I agree with Capitalismojo and DaltonCastle. I don't see how the proposed revision really makes any kinds of improvements.  If most editors disagree with the edit, then obviously I don't think it should be implemented into the article.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 23:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

So Hugh, with your recent edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&curid=13591341&diff=667448008&oldid=667419508), your reason was cited as "unnecessary, non-neutral, cherry-picked legal implication of filing status".. Do you recognize the inconsistency in your edits then? You have reverted any and all edits that you did not approve of when the information was unnecessary, non-neutral, or cherry-picked. But you do not hesitate to make edits in support of your view using the very same argument. Could you please try to work with the rest of us? DaltonCastle (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this the edit summary you pointedly excerpted? "top: - unnecessary, non-neutral, cherry-picked legal implication of filing status; lede summarizes notability of subject; legal details for body, thanks" The details of the legal implications of the filing status of the category of tax-exempt, non-profit, social welfare, public education organizations in the United States are obviously very highly relevant context in the body of this article, but obviously such details are not what is notable about the subject of this article, and so are inappropriate in the lede. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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


 * I think this is an issue of WP:OWN. I would recommend keeping a close eye on the page to ensure that non-consensus and non-neutral additions don't permanently stay in the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we should all monitor all articles for conformance to all policies and guidelines. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sooo.... why do you continue to violate policies including WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DUE & WP:UNDUE, and possible WP:NPOV & WP:COATRACKING? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please focus on article content here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hugh (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."
 * 2) "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."
 * 3) "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all."


 * Hi. None of those 3 issues apply in this instance.  One example was explained in the text, and company names are not "highly technical", nor do they need to click on the link in order to understand the sentence. In other words, if no link was provided there, the sentence would still make sense, and allow the reader to know that these companies fund this organization.  The links are provided for ease of navigation in case the reader wants to know more about those companies.  But that isn't necessary to know that they fund this organization. Onel5969 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The links are provided for ease of navigation in case the reader wants to know more about those companies." No, you missed the whole point of the link style section of our manual of style, it is that a link is NOT sufficient. We are asked to write articles that can be read and understood throughout the English speaking world. Perhaps you know who Rick Santelli is, and what the Bradley Foundation is, and what the American Petroleum Institute is. Good for you. The American Petroleum Institute is not a household word in America, let alone the rest of the world. By what policy or guideline do you deprive our readers of knowing Rick Santelli is a CNBC program host? This article is nowhere near long article guidelines, we can afford a very few words to be clear. A few words can help a reader decide whether or not to click and learn more, no in-text context whatsoever forces them to click to understand the intention of the sentence. Having resigned yourself to the realization that our due weight policy supports the inclusion of the financial support of the Bradley Foundation for the subject of this article, is the next bast thing in your mind to at least make sure our readers have no idea who the Bradley Foundation is, unless they already know? We are explicitly asked to write articles that clearly communicate, even when represented other than hypertext. Hugh (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you miss the point. The fact that Santelli is a CNBC host is not germane to the article.  The fact that he potentially coined the term which was subsequently used by the Tea Party is the relevant fact, and that was included in article. The additional information, again is not germane to the article, and is an attempt to flavor the article into a non-neutral stance against this organization.  As such they should be deleted.  Which I will, and will once again ask you to wait until consensus is reached. Onel5969 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is germane. Whenever a person is mentioned in an article, who that person is is always germane. Of course every word of an article need not be specifically about the subject of this article. We are required to include sufficient context and background that the article is clear. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is undue weight and irrelevant. It appears again and again on this page and throughout its edit history. We really need to trim down much of the page to remove any NPOV issues that arise from much of the content. We are not asking a whole lot here. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

is not an improvement over:

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

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


 * Sorry. While the content is neutral on the API page, here it is an attempt to insert a POV which is not neutral.  Please stop attempting to insert NPOV into an article already ripe with NPOV issues.  I stated that a brief mention of the funding is warranted, but that this article goes way over the amount that should be included, as an attempt to paint a non-neutral picture of this organization. I've asked you to wait for a consensus, which you seem to have some issue complying with.  There are edits you've made which, while I may disagree with their necessity in being included in the article (e.g. mention of the CNBC connection), they do not affect the neutrality of the piece. I'm not sure why you are afraid of the consensus process? Onel5969 (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that in the face of explicit manual of style recommendations you have laid off your "a link is enough" tack, which I take as progress, so thank you for that, but you are now attempting an undue weight argument, which is unfounded. Hugh (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The content you deleted is word for word from the very lede SENTENCE of the article American Petroleum Institute. The content you deleted is the single most neutral clause in the entire article. You understand perfectly well that if a reader understands who API is, it changes their comprehension of this subject, but you are incorrect with respect to our manual of style that being less clear is more neutral. Hugh (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "ripe with NPOV issues" This article is not "ripe with NPOV issues." It is a reasonable summary of reliable sources. You are attempting to make the article less clear in order to achieve your personal view of neutrality. Please help us focus on your specific current deletions of content and kindly do not use your personal opinion of the general state of the article to justify your attempts to frustrate clarity and compliance with our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE. Hugh (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this article is "ripe with NPOV issues". Hugh, there are ways a sentence can be stated that do not draw criticism from almost every other user active on this page. This really is not a major issue to be fighting tooth and nail over. When we blast the page with too much detail about its funding it does lean into NPOV violations. We really should try to reach a consensus here. This page does not belong to any one editor. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your expression of your deeply held personal belief that Wikipedia should honor the subject of this article's desire to keep its funding sources secret and ignore multiple investigative journalism reliable sources is off-topic in this thread on conformance with WP:LINKSTYLE. Please help us focus on task on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not what I said at all. But your undeniable overkill on the page hints at your commitment to turning this into an attack page. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please help us all focus on the current content of the article here on this article talk page and kindly refrain for speculating about the motives of your colleagues or speculating about what the article might turn into. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

- Everybody's focused here, except for you, - your incessant posting of this statement only continues to display your lack of consensus building, and your WP:OWN, and numerous other violations. Onel5969 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please help us focus on article content here on this article talk page. Other forums are available to you for discussing your editor behavior concerns. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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


 * I agree. Based on the consensus in several discussions on the talk page, I'll be making edits to the article to reflect that consensus, and bring the article more in-line with articles about other advocacy groups, and making it neutral. Onel5969 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you anticipate one or more of your edits might be considered controversial by one or more of your fellow editors? I mention this because if we anticipate that an edit might be controversial, we are asked to discuss the edit on the talk page first WP:CAUTIOUS. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The lede, and your personal preference for discussing in the lede the details of the technical, legal implications of the Internal Revenue Service filing status of the category of tax-exempt, social welfare non-profits, is discussed above in multiple threads, not sure why you feel the need for a new thread. But as you well know, the lede summarizes the body, and the lede summarizes notability WP:LEDE. As we discussed above, the details of the legal implications of the laws and rules pertaining to the Internal Revenue Service filing status chosen by the subject of this article are highly relevant context for inclusion in the body of this article, but of course are not what is notable about the subject of this article, and so are not appropriate for the lede. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "red herring"? As you well know, weight in a Wikipedia article is relative to weight in reliable sources. What is very highly notable about the subject of this article is the copious coverage in reliable sources of expressed concerns and complaints to regulatory agencies, from our President, from editorial boards, from political parties, and from watchdog groups, of the notable extent of the subject of this article's political activities, while enjoying the many benefits of tax exemption, including exemption from taxation, and non-disclosure. Another detail of the legal implications of the chosen filing status of the subject of this article is that it limit its political activities, a legal implication which you somehow failed to mention in your comment above and failed to include in your proposed addition to the lede. The vast RS on the subject of this article with respect to this issue is summarized in the body, and the body is summarized in the lede. We are not asked to decide legal issues, we are asked to fairly summarize reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


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


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

The Washington Post: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds
Proposed addition to funding section:

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

References:



Highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources, including The Washington Post, a newspaper with an international reputation and multiple Pulitzer Prizes for investigative journalism. The funding of the subject of this article is covered extensively in reliable sources. Coverage of the funding of the subject of this article is light relative to coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's true, but "Koch-linked" is a tautology. If a fund donates to AFP, it is automatically linked to the Kochs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you just being cute, Arthur? because that is not in any way a fair summary of The Washington Post's methodology, and so is not helpful. The report calls out three funds central to the report's definition of the network, none of which are AFP: "Most of the funds originated with two groups, the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and TC4 Trust, both of which routed some of the money through a Phoenix-based nonprofit group called the Center to Protect Patient Rights (CPPR)." Hugh (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Revised proposed addition to funding section:

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


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


 * so we can have a better understanding of how you propose this should fit into the section, what is being demonstrated by the addition of this line? It seems in some ways open-ended or otherwise without a main point.  In other words, what is the significance of this statistic? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above proposed content summarizes multiple, noteworthy, reliable sources on the topic of the ongoing funding of the subject of this article. Hugh (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

Supported by multiple, fairly stable highly reliable source references.

Proposed additional clause in bold:

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

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


 * 1)  emphasis added

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


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


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


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


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


 * The article is about AFP -- therefore I don't see how details about Koch Industries is necessary. If a reader feels obligated to learn more about Koch Industries, then they have the freedom to do so.  However, excessive detail about it does not belong on this page.  I'm in agreement with Capitalismojo.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 00:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "excessive detail" Yes, this article is about AFP. But as you know, very well, the subject of every sentence in an article need not be the subject of the article. We are asked to provide enough context that the article is clear. Is it your position that merely mentioning what industry Koch Industries is in, is off-topic? You can't be serious. Not one word? There is no relationship between the agenda of AFP and the bottom line of Koch Industries, that's your story? If our readers knew Koch Industries was an energy concern, that would be a violation of our due weight policy? That Koch Industries is an energy company is an "excessive detail"? You have got to be kidding. How about Koch Industries, an energy company? Unfair Koch Industries to coat-rack them on AFP, or unfair to AFP to coat-rack them on Koch Industries? What is your proposal for a brief, in-text cause in definition of Koch Industries on 1st mention? Nothing? Hugh (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "If a reader feels obligated to learn more about Koch Industries, then they have the freedom to do so." Are we circling back to "a link is enuf"? Hugh (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hugh, after your multiple admonitions to other editors to "keep their personal opinions to themselves", you've shared your personal opinion with us: "There is no relationship between the agenda of AFP and the bottom line of Koch Industries, that's your story?" Thank you for clarifying that you are attempting to include information about Koch Industries in this article not to "comply with WP:LINKSTYLE" but because you are of the opinion that there is an important relationship between Koch Industries and the agenda of AFP. Now that we've got your opinion on that matter out on the table, why don't you find some reliable, non-opinion sources that verify this, rather than trying to push your point of view through your "brief, neutral descriptions." This incident is exactly why so many of your fellow editors take issue with your insistence on over-describing wiki-linked terms. It's an easy way to push one's own opinions or agenda, and to include WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Koch Industries is not a household word. Reliable sources even include how one of the owners of Koch Industries enjoys saying that Koch Industries is the biggest company you've never heard of. Personal opinions don't matter, reliable sources do. Every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries includes at least a few words of description, if not more. I know I am expected to assume good faith, but increasingly I find myself wondering if some of my collaborators are determined to write an article that communicates to our readers as little as possible WP:RF. I begin to suspect that depending on our readers to not know what Koch Industries is, is the whole point of the completely untenable position that none is the correct level of detail of coverage of the nature of Koch Industries in this article. Koch Industries needs some context in this article. Kindly suggest an alternative brief, in-text clause in description of Koch Industries appropriate for first mention in this article to bring it in to compliance with our manual of style at WP:LINKSTYLE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "SYNTHESIS" Providing a brief, neutral, in-text definition of a new term on first mention is compliance with our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE; it is not synthesis; please see WP:NOTSYNTH. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "OR" The above proposed clause is not origintal research; it is sourced. Hugh (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "this incident" This is a content dispute, not an "incident." Other venues are available to you to express your concerns regarding the behavior of your fellow editors. Please help us focus on article content here on this article talk page, and please help us focus on the above proposed content in this thread on this article talk apge. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here because I saw the discussion at WP:NPOVN. I see the proposal to add the text the largest privately held energy company in the U.S. as a way of asking to provide some background information on the subject. For political organizations with names like "Americans for a Better World" or what not, personally, I always wonder more about where they came from. I tend to think there is no problem with a providing a bit of background/context. Many articles have entire background sections, and I think these sections serve the readership, though they aren't always necessary. Now I don't say that to propose that we create an entire separate background section at this point. I just think this edit makes sense. But perhaps an entire background section is warranted, as I don't see a reason to not have an entire section. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 22:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

References:



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

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


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

Lee Fang column
This is not a solid ref. Lee has known issues with compentence. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a solid ref would be linking to a blog to discredit an investigative journalist. Hugh (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Money quote; "Fang has made a laughable number of errors in his reporting on Koch." Capitalismojo (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Politico wrote that "Fang’s relentless chronicling of the Koch brothers have made him something of a star on the left," while noting his "efforts to portray the political activities of the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch as motivated by a desire to boost their profits - an argument even some liberals reject as an overly simplistic caricature." Capitalismojo (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lastly, and most importantly, this column is not Salon work but from Republic Report where Fang is employed. Fang is identified at the piece as "Lee Fang, Republic Report". It is an advocacy organization. It is probably reliable for Fang's opinions...probably. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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


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

The source is Salon. I'm sorry Fang is not your favorite author. I'm sure anyone doing investigative journalism on this beat will have some critics. Not sure that disqualifies the source. Not sure Politico is critical. The author has editors. The source is a news report on AFP's presentation of their 2015 plans to the National Press Club. Hugh (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been shown to be incorrect, it is at the ref. This is not Salon, it is Salon publishing a Republic Reporter column. Which as a column, by the way, indicates that even if it were a Salon column it would only be reliable for Fang's opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When you have both Politico and Weekly Standard (among others) questioning your journalistic competence and honesty there is a problem. It's a problem we don't need to import into an encyclopedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Yes, but...meh. Wikiprojects are free to add tangential articles as far as I am aware. I see the reasoning behind the labor project. I don't see any connection to the environment. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Opposition to cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes is the potential link to the environment project. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Not sure and, if you saw my above comments.  They can get lost in the deluge of nonsense posted by another editor. Onel5969 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea I did see it, but contrary to any discussion, our friend went ahead and did things his way. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * You're comment Hugh, while correct, is disingenuous, you joined the project on (June 15) and quickly added the tag (within 2 minutes). You failed to get consensus on adding it to the project, until you campaigned for support.  Since this is clearly under WP:PROJSCOPE.  Due to your actions there, and your continued disruptive behavior here, I would say this should be out unless consensus can be reached here.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article." applies to editors not involved in the project that wants to add it. WP:PROJSCOPE says if a project decides to have an article in its scope, then that is that. And there's no harm done at any rate. Note that this is not any comment on the merits of any recent content dispute. And this kind of scope determination can fly in any ideological direction. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot more thought into the matter than just this. There is an editor who has been canvassing, trying to get editors that agree with him to take notice of the page. It is an underhanded attempt to get editors with a particular ideology to notice the page. I doubt anyone in those WikiProjects has decided this page falls under scope other than this editor. There would be no harm done if there was not an editor who has been pushing a non-neutral POV and canvassing to make it happen. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. If you believe an editor has canvassed, please report them. Please assume good faith and refrain from speculating about the motives of your collaborators here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ^Just like all those times you assumed good faith with me? Reporting me again and again despite a consensus to get me off the page? DaltonCastle (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is not kosher. However, I think the basic issue is whether WikiProject Organized Labour has made a "decision" about their scope and the inclusion of this article. In the consensus discussion on the project's page which seems to have reached a mild consensus, only User:Tim1965 is a long-term/significant member of that project.  I would say he makes the call at this point.  He didn't seem totally firm as of his last comment there, so maybe he would like to go ahead and make the decision for the project.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 01:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not dare to speak for the project. There would need to be more discussion by the Organized Labour project first. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)