Talk:Americans for Prosperity/Archive 6

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

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

Sources:



A version of this content was added in March 2015 and collaboratively work-shopped here on talk in May 2015, see above in Conflicting accounts. The talk page consensus was that the consensus across multiple RS was strong enough to support WP voice, that is, in-text attribution was unnecessary. This content was 23 June 2015 with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality," as a small part of major, undiscussed content blanking. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Every reliable source that I've seem makes this plain fact very clear. Attribution is not needed.- MrX 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


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

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


 * This appears to be a spillover from a public spat between the Obama campaign and Koch industries during the last election. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is a spillover? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the claim that "Americans for Prosperity is the Koch's primary political advocacy group" is a hotbed of dispute whereas other billionaires such as the Rockefeller family making multimillion-dollar political contributions to support various causes is something that Wikipedia has consistently found to be neither interesting or notable is, in my opinion, spillover from a public spat between the Obama campaign and Koch industries during the last election. That and the fact that if you read and listen to left-wing bloggers and radio talk shows all you hear about are the evil right-wing billionaires contributing to right-wing causes while if you read and listen to right-wing bloggers and radio talk shows all you hear about are the evil left-wing billionaires contributing to left-wing causes. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose content inclusion.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. As an experienced editor you understand, of course, that we are not voting, and your reasons are important. Please explain your thinking with specific reference to the above proposed content and sources, and policy and guideline. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Only people opposed to inclusion of the material are required to give a dissertation of their thoughts on the subject? Everything I've already stated on the talk page isn't sufficient? I see several "supports" here without detailed justification as well, and no comment from you requesting that they add more detail on their VOTE. That doesn't seem fair. Then again, you've made it very clear that I am very susceptible to "rookie mistakes" here on the talk page so maybe I am wrong - its your world Hugh clearly we are just living in it... Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a fellow editor of yours and I asked you to explain your opposition to this content. You're right, I don't care so much why someone else supports it. Right now I care what you think. As you know from my earlier comments to you, I sincerely beleive, in good faith, that when you talk about "neutral," it does not mean the same thing as most of us. I think one possible way forward from this impasse is for you to explain in your own words your opposition to this content and we could all look at it together. That's how we roll here. We need to get off of arguments of the form "I don't like it, 'nuf said." I look forward to your response. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please help us understand why you oppose inclusion of this content. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Voting is not a substitute for discussion WP:PNSD. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And demanding that oppose !voters explain themselves while making no such demand on support !voters is not a substitute for a fair and unbiased RfC. Just say no to blackwashing. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Seems well sourced, and provides crucial context. (I stumbled on this page, by accident, since I watch WP:AE) By the way, if this is a request for comment, why is the rfc tag not present? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your engagement. I started this thread in the spirit of role modelling proposing changes at talk prior to article space. It was not intended as a formal RfC. It seemed to me the most important single sentence purged from the article, and I was interested in soliciting comments and addressing possible objections prior to an RfC, if it came to that. I wanted to better understand how it could possibly be considered undue, because I had no idea. I still don't. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC process exists for a reason. It is a good way to get outside opinions, if you feel that the "local" consensus is incomplete or wrong. From what I see, this particular statement is supported by most people here, but others may not be. In this case, a formal RfC can clarify matters. I notice that you participate a lot on the talk page. That is good, but keep in mind that nobody is forced to respond to all of your comments: if they feel that they have addressed your points sufficiently, they can stop. A RfC for some of the stuff can be helpful. If the consensus is still against you, you should just drop the WP:STICK. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am not opposed to this sentence per se. But I would like to stress that most of you are new users on this page. You were not there through some of the previous heated battles. One user in particular coatracked the page (WP:COATRACKING) to push a non-neutral POV. So I do want to support this insertion but I cannot on the grounds that if we give this up, this user will then justify undoing all of the progress we have made in the past months. And I believe you all must commit to not allowing re-adding a sentence to become re-adding a major POV push. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike my colleague, I welcome the contributions of diverse new editors to this good article effort. Of course experienced editors will immediately recognize the bankruptcy of arguing against neutral, verifiable, reliable sourced content on the grounds that we cannot afford to empower the proposing editor. In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position. To the new eyes, again, welcome, and permit me to catch you up on the "previous heated battles" my good colleague refers to: what you have missed is, as this article approached the completeness of good article criteria, a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. Welcome, and thank you in advance for all your help. Hugh (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No you dont. Stop trying to act like your behaviour of a month ago has been forgotten. You accused anyone who disagreed with you of every possible violation. You did not improve the page, you Coatracked it. Your disingenuous efforts to make it seem like you were not the aggressor and POV pusher is absurd. I am not opposing this single sentence being added. I am opposing your push to re-instert a COATRACK. If the other editors are unaware of your efforts in this I will make it known to all of them. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As this isn't an RFC, I'm not sure why it devolved into "voting," which doesn't seem particularly productive. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion. Is it your intent to organize your colleagues not to participate in the talk page discussions unless it is formal RfC? Hugh (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that is not my intent. And by the by, your accusation that I "comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion" is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just how long do you suggest I assume good faith? We are not obligated to assume good faith once we have convincing evidence to the contrary. How long should I sit by, how many editors need to stop by this talk page and try in vain to explain our neutrality pillar to you? Every day a little good faith slips away and is gone. I am a deeply flawed human, my patience is not infinite. You preach consensus but you loves yourself some bold deleting. You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss. Sometimes I think I may have assumed good faith too long. I begin to suspect the issue on this talk page is not a lack of understanding of policy at all. I am gradually coming to the realization that you understand WP:DUE just fine, you just don't like it is the nut. I think you think you know better than our pillars. Hugh (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Give yourself over to our due weight policy. You will be happier. Our due weight policy is everything you could ask for: it is crystal clear, it is objective and quantifiable. Coverage in our articles is proportional to coverage in RS. It couldn't be simpler. Free yourself from your self-imposed life sentence of arguing online in order to try and craft a favorable and/or flattering article out of a mountain of contrary rs. Imagine how much more enjoyable editing will be for you and everyone around you without the constant bickering. Join us. 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You ask "Just how long do you suggest I assume good faith?". The answer is: "forever". If you have evidence of bad faith, you should use the noticeboards dedicated to this purpose. On article talk pages, discussion must continue to WP:AGF. Everyone has a POV, but that does not mean they are acting in bad faith. I suggest you read the essay WP:GLUE. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. This is well sourced, coverage is widespread. I'm not seeing a convincing argument against including it here. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. Essentially what Koch Industries apparently would like us to buy is their simple statement that there is no involvement . . . nothing to see here.  It takes real journalists to dig past the wall they obviously wish to put up, to see there is some there, there.  Not only should wikipedia accept the hard work of these journalist, sources as we call them, but their success should impugn the Koch statement.  I will say I was attracted to this discussion by a (now corrected) attempt to hide Hugh's call for this discussion from public view.  I think that is a normal reaction, in both cases we should look at what is being covered up. Trackinfo (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Do this for every billionaire or not at all. Only doing this for a conservative donor is WP:COATRACKING. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree, lets do this for every billionaire who is making exceptional political donations. Please suggest sources for this information and we should add it to all those articles, perhaps even better, create a unified directory of all large political contributions.  List of political contributors over one million dollars.  Sort by individual (or organizational) totals, cumulative and annual and by nation (though in most countries around the world I believe such large contributions would just be considered bribes). Trackinfo (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Reliably sourced without contradiction. I originally proposed this formulation and see no reason to depart from it. We "do this" for some billionaires and not for others simply because we can only include what newspapers and other reliable sources say. Just because the press hasn't designated George Soros (or whomever) as having a primary political vehicle doesn't mean we can't write this about the Kochs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Media has designated Soros as having a primary political vehicle. Plenty. Presenting one POV and not the other is COATRACKING. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is an article about AFP and the proposed content is about AFP. There's nothing coatracking about that. As for any inconsistency with George Soros, that's easy. Just go over there and fix it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer to the problem of certain editors deciding that The Koch brothers and the Koch brothers alone simply must be treated in a way that is radically different from the way Wikipedia treats just about every other large political contributor (individuals and organizations) is not to change the way Wikipedia treats all of the other large political contributors but instead to tell those editors that they can't treat the Koch brothers differently, per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Just say no to blackwashing. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of editors treating the Koch brothers differently, but a matter of representing reliable sources. If reliable sources in the media and academia place an emphasis on the Koch brothers and their relationship with the AFP, then it is our responsibility to reflect that. If such an emphasis is placed on other billionaire donors by the media and academia, then you're free to include that information in relevant articles, just like we should be allowed to include it here. This is one of those "but they don't do it" red herring arguments I was talking about before and it is completely irrelevant to the fact that WP policies allows the inclusion of such information. I've already explained multiple times how this isn't a matter for WP:NPOV unless you can show that we are giving favoritism to sources that focus on Koch funding over sources that focus on other funding. You've yet to supply any of those sources, so this isn't a NPOV issue. This also isn't a BLP issue since none of the claims are contentious and are purely factual. We aren't the ones deciding that koch brothers should be treated differently, it's the reliable sources that clearly treat them differently and the article should reflect that. Arguing that its editors placing an unfair focus on Koch while no evidence has been presented placing focus on other funders, is a fallacious argument.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I look forward to collaborating with you on improving our project's coverage of the financing of politics, here and at other articles. Hugh (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I started this thread, tho I don't own it; I would like to express my thanks to the editors who took up the invitation to take a public stand, and I am particularly grateful to those who took at extra few seconds to explain their position. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: inclusion of reliably sourced information that meets WP guidelines of verifiability.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on condition I do think that HughD is trying to blackwash the Koch family and this article is one avenue for that effort. However, we do have reliable sources that make the claim.  If we don't have reliable sources that dispute the claim then I think it should stand.  If we have reliable sources that disagree then it becomes a point in conflict.  In that case it can still be mentioned but should not be in the lead, only in the body.  Furthermore in the body it should be clear that this is a point on which RSs don't agree. I would also note that none of those sources strike me as highly reliable.  MJ and Slate both have rich histories of running sensational articles that are later shown to be questionable.  I know less of the history of MY Mag and Politico but I'm not sure they have been shown to be as reliable as say the Wall street Journal or a proper peer reviewed source.  This is particular important when we are talking about "fuzzy" facts such as when someone is accuse of being racist.  Often a reasonable action can be seen as racist by one and reasonable by another and both based on valid logic (racism as an example not because it relates here).  Springee (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources



I can't close as I'm an involved editor, but there appears to be a clear consensus in favor of including this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Koch's primary political organization
In the lead we have a statement that AFP is the Koch's primary political organization. I think that is important in articles about the Kochs but it is undue in the lead of this article. It implies that it (AFP) is owned by or a mere tool and pawn of the Kochs when in fact they don't even give a majority of the funds. Yes they helped found the org and clearly remain active with it, no it is not "theirs". Capitalismojo (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This was discussed quite recently, above. It's also not undue: the vast majority of reliable sources actually do portray AFP as a tool/instrument of the Koch brothers. There's really no point trying to argue against that fact, since there are literally hundreds of newspaper articles, academic books, and other articles that make that link. Trying to argue that all those sources are somehow wrong because you personally think the numbers don't add up is original research. Please, let's call a spade a spade (and be consistent with what the reliable sources say) for once, shall we? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I recently found a mention of AFP in an academic book by Andrew Ross called Bird on Fire (about environmental problems in Phoenix, Arizona), in which the author makes the same point. Granted, all of these sources may be borrowing from each other, but each of them has a separate editorial staff for vetting, or, in the case of Ross's book, there is peer review, which should catch any egregious error, so I think the WP article is OK with labeling AFP as the Koches' primary political organization. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


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


 * This does not meet the point. Yes, this is the main org where the Kochs are politically active. Fine. We all agree. That is an important point in their bios. This, however, is the article about AFP. The Kochs had a hand in founding the organization but it now has hundreds of thousands of members and donors. Our sources at this page make it explicit that they (the Kochs) are not the majority donors. That is not OR, that is what the refs say. Recall the discussion about the budget above, $44 million of $140 was from "Koch related" organizations (undefined/what ever that means). They clearly don't own this organization and implying that they do are naive, and is an unsupported conspiracy theory that doesn't belong in the lead. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The in-depth NY Mag article that Fyddlestix mentioned above is explicit that this idea that the Koch's own AFP is a charge thrown by critics. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You looking at data and then making a conclusion about most/least/whatever IS original research. You are drawing a conclusion based on your understanding of the data that is not explicitly stated by the source. Regardless, there are multiple sources that identify Koch as the founders of AFP and/or characterize the AFP as the Koch owned superpac to propagate their agenda. So there is no reason why it shouldn't be reflected in the article. If someone comes to this article and asks "What is the AFP?" then part of that answer is "A political superpac founded/used/owned by the Koch brothers". That's how numerous sources describe the AFP and it certainly deserves attention in the lead.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * May I please ask, why did you start a new section? Why did you not join your colleagues in working toward consensus by contributing to the recent thread Talk:Americans for Prosperity above on this very talk page? That thread above includes the content you object to and links to the sources and excerpts from the sources for the convenience of readers of this talk page and participants in the discussion. Hugh (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a different issue. I think it's entirely proper to include the well sourced info that this is the main organization that the Kochs' engage in for advocacy. What we have in the lead now is the implication that this is owned by the Kochs, that they are puppet masters. That is a rank conspiracy theory. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not be in the lead, it is truly WP:UNDUE. From NY Mag referenced above: "Koch denies being directly involved with the tea party—“I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me”—but he and his brother Charles were being accused of supporting the group through an affiliated conservative organization. Rachel Maddow had effectively called Koch the tea party’s puppet master. “The radical press is coming after me and Charles,” he said. “They’re using us as whipping boys.” Capitalismojo (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I never referred to the NY mag piece, I was referring to the numerous academic sources I've already cited above. Now that you've brought it up, though, I'm wondering if you actually read the piece. You say that the article portrays the idea of AFP being the "Koch's" group as something "thrown by critics." But the same piece also says very directly (in the article's voice, as a factual statement) that "In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFP is now Koch’s primary political-advocacy group." Your interpretation of that particular source is very clearly incorrect. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, the lead, thanks. Thank you for raising this at talk rather than deleting. Very clearly, the fact that the subject of this article is the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group belongs in the lede, first paragraph, second sentence, right where it is. Several political advocacy groups, sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, were founded by the Koch brothers, and several are noted as funded by the Koch brothers, but only one is notable for being characterized in multiple independent reliable sources as the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group. The status of the subject of this article as the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group is its one of if not the most notable aspect of the subject of this article. Furthermore, this characterization is not disparaging. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Our sources at this page make it explicit that they (the Kochs) are not the majority donors." Our article makes clear that characterizing the funding is necessarily incomplete. Our article makes no claim that anyone is the majority funder. In any case the issue of the identity of the majority funder is a different issue from the issue of being the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you understand that Koch denying involvement in the tea party movement is not the same as a denial of involvement with the subject of this article. In any case a first-person statement does not overrule reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "It implies that it (AFP) is owned by or a mere tool and pawn of the Kochs" Our article makes no such claims explicit or implied. Please help us all focus on actual article content here on this article talk page. Our lede states that the subject of this article is a non-profit orgranization and we can trust our readers to understand that that means that no one owns it. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "This, however, is the article about AFP." Yes, the subject of this article is Americans for Prosperity, and the subject of the sentence you are concerned about is also Americans for Prosperity: "it [Americans for Prosperity] is their primary political advocacy group." You've tried undue, disparaging, misleading, off-topic. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "That is an important point in their bios." We agree, the fact that Americans for Prosperity is their primary political advocacy organization should be included in the BLP of both David and Charles. Hugh (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * TLDR next time try to avoid the WP:WALL of text. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand the difference between this discussion and the last one. It sounds like you're just making a new argument for why the same content doesn't belong. The last discussion specifically addressed the neutrality issue. Same issue, different arguments, same consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * DrFleischman, I think that the referenced material means what it says, that this org is the Koch's preferred org for advocacy. I think some are reading it to say that the Kochs own the org and are "puppetmasters". That makes for fun reading by conspiracy theorists but isn't correct and reads too much into the material. (2+2=5) My thought is that putting it in the lead plays to the myth-making. My final thought is that it should be in the body of this article and at the bio's of the Kochs. Since I apparently haven't been able to express this well, I feel it is unlikely to achieve the consensus I seek. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, we can just insert this direct quote in the lead from a peer reviewed scholarly source ""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]." That way there's no confusion. AFP isn't just Koch's "preferred org for advocacy", they created it, founded it, and use it to push their agenda. This is all represented in a variety of scholarly sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the statement is false should be noted. AFP is a spin-off of a successor of an organization founded by the Kochs, and the claim that the Kochs control AFP is unproven, and possibly a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As per WP:OR your arguments about the validity of claims made in strong reliable secondary sources are irrelevant and are a violation of one of the pillars of Wikipedia.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. As there are reliable sources which make different claims, although we are not allowed to comment in articles about the discrepancies,  we are allowed to, and should, include all non-fringe statements about the relationships if reliable sources disagree.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have yet to present equally reliable articles that make contradictory claims. If you do, then it's something we can discuss and make sure it's given appropriate weight in the article. Your previous comment was just a baseless assertion and without reliable sources to back up your claim that "the statement is false" then it becomes irrelevant.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it really is OR.  You don't get to reject a source (much less dozens of sources) because you personally think they're incorrect,  or because you don't like what they say.  This content is consistent with the vast majority of reliable sources,  and there is no valid, policy based reason for wanting to keep it out of the article. If you actually read what some of the most reliable sources say (have you actually looked at them Arthur?) you'd know that they acknowledge that AFP grew out of the CSE while also clearly stating that "after the CSE breakup, Americans for Prosperity continued to enjoy direct funding and leadership through Koch Industries and the Koch brothers.” You're grasping at straws here - there is no inconsistency or inaccuracy in the sources. This is just a case of "I don't like it." Fyddlestix (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "I think some are reading it to say that the Kochs own the org and are "puppetmasters"." Our article makes no such claim, implicit or explicit, in the lede or in the body. Our article explicitly explains in the lede and in the body that the subject of this article is a non-profit organization, and we can trust our readers to understand that no one owns it. Our article explains in the body that the subject of this article has a board of directors. Our article is very clear. Our article is a fair paraphrase of reliable sources on the leadership of the subject of this article. The authors of our sources trusted their readers, and we can, too. Please help us all focus on actual article content on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all about and only about content. Who? There is a quote above from NYMag. That is where the term "puppetmasters" came from and it is easy to see why this is getting sideways, it is clear we are indeed making this an implicit argument by highlighting them in the lead. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Puppetmaster" is not in our article or in our lede. Please help us all focus on actual article content on this article talk page. Hugh (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I never said it was, it was asked (who?). It was answered. I find the mistatements avoiding of the actual stream of the conversation off-putting and uncollegial. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't close as I'm an involved editor, but this matter was very recently raised and discussed extensively in a previous thread and the consensus was to include this material. The consensus does not appear to have changed. Please raise off-topic issues in a new discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of ANI posting regarding canvasing related to RfC
I'm not an involved editor in this or related articles. I have posted a notice on the ANI noticeboard regarding canvasing related to this article. [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 15:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit history of this talk page tells a very different story of involvement. Thank you sinebot!Scoobydunk (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "I'm not an involved editor" Please see 25 Edits by user Springee to Talk:Americans for Prosperity. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Scoobydunk, I would suggest that rather than insinuating something you state it out right. Please show any and all edits I have made to the article or any related article.  I'm sorry you had to wait for signbot to correct my failure to sign the post to figure out that I posted it.  Springee (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to edit the article to be considered "involved." Taking a position on the dispute and posting about it on the talk page means you're involved.  Not sure why anyone thinks this matters though.  Fyddlestix (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't post an RfC and advertise it in multiple locations in order to get the opinion of uninvolved editors and then suddenly declare them to be involved when they do what you asked them to do in your ads. anyone who never edited in this area before and then came here to comment on the RfC is and will remain an uninvolved editor until they make an edit to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Involved has to do with being part of a dispute, which can and does occur on the talk pages. Once you chime in with your opinion, you become involved in the dispute, especially when you've commented multiple times. Sure, you were uninvolved before becoming involved, but from this point out you nor I can refer to ourselves as "uninvolved" when posting future notices or responses. You have clearly become involved in the dispute and involvement is not limited to editing the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I commented multiple times in part because HughD can not accept an answer that doesn't agree with his POV. He profusely thanks people who agree with him[] while brow beating and demanding answer of those who do not.  I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why he commented on my General Motors question a while back was simply as a passive aggressive act.  Sorry, prior to this RfC I had never commented on this subject.  I have never edited on this subject.  I answered the RfC as a neutral editor.  Your opinion is noted and not entirely unreasonable.  However, I have noticed that in this and other talk pages sometimes your strict adherence to the rules seems to wain if such adherence may result in something you don't want in the article.  But unlike HughD, I don't think your replies to my GM question came across as a form of passive aggressive behavior.  Anyway, it is clear that we are not all in agreement as to the definition of uninvolved.  I don't think you will convince those who disagree with you.  Springee (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please help us all focus on article content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here on this article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your comments on editor behavior including but not limited to user talk pages. Your comments on editor behavior are off topic here on this article talk page. Please refrain from comments on editor behavior here on this article talk page. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What a funny and dishonest comment by you. Did you forget that you were unwilling to do the same less than 48 hours ago?[]  Springee (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is getting pretty far away from a discussion of the article subject. Maybe we can just move on (or at least take this up somewhere else)? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, we should all try to remember what we're here for. Neither the ANI nor this thread appear to have any realistic chance advancing our collective goal of improving the article, so it's time to let this one go. Hugh has been warned by many editors here for repeated canvassing or canvassing-like behavior, so if he does it again we have ample ammo for an ANI that, if carefully presented, has a real chance of accomplishing something. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DRAFT Request for Comment: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds
Question: Should the following content be added to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity:

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

References:

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

Background

Previous talk page discussion above at.

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

Summary of previous arguments

Support Inclusion: Oppose Inclusion:
 * 1) Highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources.
 * 2) Highly significant content summarizing a key finding of investigative journalism.
 * 3) Funding and Kochs are covered extensively in reliable sources; coverage in article is light relative to reliable sources.
 * 1) Current coverage of Kochs in this article is undue.
 * 2) Article talk page consensus opposes inclusion.
 * 3) Sources are biased.

Survey (draft)
Please use this subsection to indicate support or opposition to the above question and a brief comment. Please do not included threaded comments in this subsection. Please feel free to change your support or opposition and maintain your position here as the discussion progresses. Thank you.
 * Support Inclusion because..rationale...signed
 * Oppose Inclusion since...rationale...signed


 * Support inclusion - The sources above are compelling. Additional sources like this National Journal article, this Kansas City Star article, and this NPR segment suggest that there is enough coverage to justify adding 23 words to this 4300+ word article, per WP:DUE.- MrX 16:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to be that guy, but: the Kansas Star piece is a letter to the editor (not a RS). I like the PBS one in particular though, it's unrelated to the WP piece (doesn't even mention it) and makes specific reference to tax records which back up the claim. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MrX, I think Hugh is looking for comments on the format and wording of what he has described as a "draft" RfC above. This threaded discussion is not yet an RfC, as I understand it. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Do you have any comments on the form of the RfC? Please comment below at the bottom of this thread. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I skipped a step. Consider this my !vote and yes, the RfC question is fine.- MrX 17:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose RfC on procedural grounds. HughD already raised this issue twice before (he lists the places in the "previous discussions" sections) in which the consensus was against him, has an open RfC where the consensus so far isn't going his way, and now he proposes yet another RfC? No, you do not get to ask the same question over and over, hoping that this time the answer will be different. Hugh, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and accept the fact that you are not going to get your way. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (draft)
Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you.

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


 * Why? We've already established consensus against.  You might consider bringing it up in a few months.  And "Koch-linked feeder funds" is supported by all the sources; "organized by the Kochs" only by one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously Arthur the purpose of an RfC is to assess community-wide consensus. Thank you for your comments. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why again? You have already established that you will not abide consensus at the noticeboards.  If someone else proposes the RFC, that might be different.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the RfC process is available to all Wikipedians. If you believe you have a basis for barring an editor from a posing an RfC, you may pursue that elsewhere. This thread is to solicit comments on the form of the RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you would agree not to edit the article, it would make sense to discuss wording of the RfC. As it stands, if there is a result which could conceivably be considered as supporting the result you prefer, you will edit it in.
 * As it stands, I would support replacing the funding section with this statement; most reliable sources only have one piece of information about funding, which suggests that as the appropriate weight. If you don't want that as the outcome, it would be a good idea to change the wording.  I cannot recommend a change in the wording of the RfC, except, as I suggested above, making it "Koch-linked feeder funds", as supported by more sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This thread is to solicit comments on the form of the RfC. The intent of this draft RfC is a restoration of purged neutral, verifiable, noteworthy, relevant content. If you are interested in removing content from the article based on your amusing and original interpretations of our due weight policy, may I respectfully recommend you give it a whirl in a separate RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be completely ignoring the "due weight" policy. If most sources which talk about the funding mention only one fact (or, often, factoid) about the funding, then we should do the same.  This probably is the most common fact reported.  As written, though, it constitutes an opinion from a biased source, reported as an opinion by at least one of the newspapers.  "Koch-linked feeder funds" is more descriptive and accurate.
 * This is probably the best you can do toward supporting your POV. It might very well not get consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your generous concession that Americans for Prosperity may have one sentence, one fact, one factoid, on funding. Hugh (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your early support of this proposed content, even if conditional. However much appreciated, your enthusiasm for the proposed content is premature in that this is a draft RfC, respectfully provided at this time to garner comments on the form of the RfC. If you believe a particular editor should not edit a particular article, other venues are available to you. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No reason to keep bringing up same COATRACK statement that has already been rejected by consensus. Please stop.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Do you have any comments on the form of the RfC? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. Yes, the form is missing the hat and hab bracing that should be applied immediately to what is now at least a third discussion on the same material.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a DRAFT RfC provided as an opportunity for comments from concerned editors on the form of the question. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for the DRAFT. All of the three bullet sources link to the same Washington Post source (the two obvious WaPo sources are the same and factCheck references "In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million" which is the WaPo story by Matea Gold).  They are not three separate sources. FactCheck does not vouch for the WaPo numbers and in fact says they don't know (part of a 501(c)(4) is that they don't know).  There is only one source and that is the author of the WaPo articles.  It's false to claim there are three sources.  It's one source.   Matea Gold is married to Jonathan Falk Lenzner a person she met during the Bill Bradley campaign.  Questionable source for these types of claims leveled against political opponents.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide a link to discussion where consensus was reached? I would like to read the arguments for and against inclusion before I weigh in on this content.- MrX 13:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's part of the RfC under "previous discussion" that occurred only three weeks ago both here and a noticeboard. Two prior attempts in 3 weeks to change something should preclude a third attempt by 3-6 months.   Please make it stop.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Link?- MrX 14:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion and this one are what is being referred to. Maybe I'm missing something, but if those are the previous discussions being alluded to, it seems to me as though the consensus on this point is being rather over-stated. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, neither of those are indicative of any consensus. This is not the first time that I've seen false claims of consensus on this page. How about we stop that?- MrX 16:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is achieved if through multiple discussions and multiple edits, the text remains unchanged. It is consensus. Please read WP:CONSENSUS --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. So there is no actual consensus. I'm familiar with WP:CONSENSUS, but thanks for the link and the reading suggestion.- MrX 22:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Try reading it again. In WP:CONSENSUS at the beginning it describes "

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The existing edit has consensus and has lasted.  Following the link to Silence and consensus explains why.   The new proposal has been tried at least twice without success.  It doesn't have consensus.  The existing edit remains unchanged.  Pretty straighforward stuff.  They even have a flow chart.  It starts with "Previous consensus" which is defined as what is already in the article.  Simply pointing to the previous failures to change and the existing text establishes it as consensus.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Upthread, you stated "No reason to keep bringing up same COATRACK statement that has already been rejected by consensus." and now you seem to be saying it doesn't have consensus because it's not already in the article.  Perhaps you can clarify which it is. My reading of the previous discussions suggests that there is no consensus one way or the other. That is distinctly different than "rejected by consensus".- MrX 02:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Respectfully request comments and suggestions from additional involved editors on the format of the draft RfC. Is the statement of the question clear, concise, and neutral? Does the draft RfC succinctly capture all the main arguments as bullet points? This RfC will launch soon. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that point 1 against is badly phrased, as it implies that the argument is that any discussion of the Kochs would be undue. The phrasing I would suggest is that current coverage of the Kochs is excessive.  Also, my alternative proposal that the funding section be replaced by the suggested statement (with my modification) needs to be included, whether or not you (Hugh) agree with it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. Other involved editors please? Hugh (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arthur Rubin's assessment. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Arthur Rubin's assessment, and note the good points DHeyward made about the available sourcing. We should be looking at this as one source. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: the "one source" claim, these are very clearly not "one source." If anything, the fact that other news sources and writers frequently repeat what the Washington Post printed suggests that we should give the Post's account significant weight, rather than making it less reliable. You're also ignoring this completely unrelated source (raised by Mr. X, above).  It doesn't even mention the Post, and suggests that "For 2012, tax records show that AFP got nearly $44 million from two other tax-exempt organizations in the Koch's extensive political network." Fyddlestix (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The NPR item may be independent, but doesn't support the statement as Hugh originally proposed it. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)