Talk:Empower Texans

Explanation of content removal
I recently removed this newly added content from the article. Here's my reasoning:

1) "The group spent $1.4 million in the Republican primary held on March 1, 2016 but fared poorly in the first round of balloting." According to the source, Jay Dean said the group spend $1.4 million. That's at the minimum an opinion that needs to be attributed. However, I think it's more likely unreliable because FEC records haven't come out yet, and Dean may have been a target of Empower Texans spending. The article doesn't say that Empower Texans "fared poorly." That appears to be original research.

2) "Dean criticized Empower Texans, accordingly..." Actually, the article doesn't say that he is criticizing Empower Texans. The quote seem to be generally criticizing outside spending in political races. In any event, Dean, as an apparent target of Empower Texans, fails WP:IMPARTIAL here.

3) "Watts earlier obtained statewide recognition as the intra-party rival of George P. Bush in the 2014 race for Texas land commissioner." I can't find this information in the source provided, and it doesn't seem very relevant to Empower Texans, the subject of this article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above critique seems to be mistaken, perhaps from a misreading of the article, or reading the wrong article. The in line citation supports the blurb that was removed, except for the relationship between Watts and Bush, but it is probably accurate, and can be found in a source. I am restoring the blurb. Wikipedia reflects what sources say. --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Key people Dunn and Wilks?
Horse Eye Jack - I'm reverting back to Marguardtika's edits. From the source "Bonnen met with Michael Quinn Sullivan, the leading figure in the party’s insurgent right and the voice of Christian megadonors Tim Dunn and the Wilks brothers, Dan and Farris. At the meeting, Bonnen offered to give members of Sullivan’s organization, Empower Texans, media credentials ...," and you turn that into Empower Texans "key people = Tim Dunn and Dan and Farris Wilks" in the infobox and "Empower Texans is primarily funded by Tim Dunn and the Wilks Brothers and has been involved in representing these wealthy men in negotiations with Texas politicians.[4]" For one- nothing in that says that Empower Texans is primarily funded by Dunn and Wilks brothers. Find a source that says that if it is true. Second, the CEO of an organization being called the "voice" of someone does not necessarily mean that those people are key people in the organization- an individual's actions are not necessarily representative of the organization they work for. And the article does not indicate that these actions were on behalf of Empower Texans. If this is true, there should be a source that actually says that. Finally, being offered something by the former speaker does not necessarily "negotiating on behalf of." I assume this was covered more extensively than this Texas Monthly article so there should be information that indicates "negotiating on behalf of" and not just "being offered something".Tchouppy (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Does this group still exist?
Their website is dead. This article from October 2020 noted a major reduction in the group's spending. This says the PAC is dissolved. Nothing on their Twitter account since 2020. I'm not seeing anything formal in the media though. Marquardtika (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very possible but cannot find a secondary reliable source saying it. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

CEO or NO?
This says he is the CEO, but [this https://empowertexans.com/moving-to-texas-scorecard/] (which is cited in the page and says he is "former") is a broken link to the ET website. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also looking for feedback on - "In 2012 and 2013, Texas Monthly and The Texas Observer wrote that Michael Quinn Sullivan had exaggerated budget increases and other statistics to make it appear that more moderate Republicans were not sufficiently conservative.[13][17]" - This looks like two publications ran a story at the same time and I don't see any traction of it in the media. Is this relevant to the organization page? If not, I am in favor of removing but will wait some feedback. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm paywalled out of this source at the moment, but is there anything helpful here? Marquardtika (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that answers a lot of questions. According to the source - "Funded with their billions, a small group of donors used Empower Texans to push the state GOP farther and farther to the right. Sullivan was first president, then CEO, of the group for 13 years before it faded away in August 2020." - Not sure if we say it is a "former" conservative advocacy group or if we just put in the history that it was "reported" to be defunct in 2020. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for accessing this source. What if we say something like "Empower Texans was active from 2006 through 2020"? I think just saying "defunct" or "inactive" works too. Marquardtika (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-thinking "defunct" as the reference doesn't actually say that and I absolutely hate original research. We could put a line that says, "the group was active through 2020" which better matches the source. Thoughts? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that will work. IMO, "faded away" is a synonym for "defunct," but your wording gets the point across just as well. Marquardtika (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)