Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:33, 29 April 2015

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Creation reasons

I created this page because there is a lack of information concerning the Americans for Prosperity organization on the Internet. Wiki has always been as fair a news source as I have found on the Internet and so I would like to start an article on this organization.

This organization is important enough to have hosted a presidential debate in Washington D.C. with 6 of the 10 GOP presidential contenders. Misplaced Pages needs to be covering this organization.

Xenodata 01:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've declined the speedy-delete request. Don't re-add the {{hangon}}, as this puts it back into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I will warn you that as it stands, it won't survive if anyone nominates it for deletion, as it doesn't have any reliable sources. — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-partisan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check sourcewatch

Sourcewatch has an article on this group that can be cited as a source, or the articles that it cites can be cited. For controversial groups it's usually wise to dig through Sourcewatch to get more background on them. You may also find more on the funding organizations / foundations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.190.139 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SourceWatch, like Misplaced Pages, should be used as a link source and not a standalone source. Here's a link from the New Yorker that might go farther in validating the Koch link to CSE, FreedomWorks, and AFP: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all Black Max (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Black Max

Mayer is already used, sorry. Collect (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

tags added

The article lacks reliable sources to back up the claims that Koch founded Americsns for Prosperity. This article seems to rely heavily on Sourcewatch which is not a reliable source. There is no reliable source that says Koch founded this organization, or that it is split off from CSE, which now has an expired website. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SourceWatch, like Misplaced Pages, should be used as a link source and not a standalone source. Here's a link from the New Yorker that might go farther in validating the Koch link to CSE, FreedomWorks, and AFP: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all Black Max (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Black Max

A very British Tea Party: US anti-tax activists advise UK counterparts: London conference sees American rightwing movement share

A very British Tea Party: US anti-tax activists advise UK counterparts: London conference sees American rightwing movement share tactics with British and European tax lobby groups Some excerpts:

• "Libertarian US Tea Party organisations attended a conference in London today to share tactics with British and European taxpayer lobby groups, and described their activities as 'an insurgent campaign' against their government's tax and spending policies."
• "Americans for Prosperity, another Tea Party group which claims to have 1.5m activists and is headed by oil billionaire David Koch, was also represented at the London conference, and helped fund it."
• "AFP is one of several US thinktanks that have sought to disrupt the Obama presidency by opposing healthcare reform, stimulus spending, and cap-and-trade legislation on carbon emissions.
• "Other leading US rightwing thinktanks that financed the conference include the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Conservative MPs Peter Lilley and Robert Halfon spoke at the event, which was also attended by representatives from Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a Climate change skeptical thinktank led by Lord Lawson, and BP.
• Aligned FreedomWorks:
  • "'We need to reach out to a broader audience," said Barbara Kohn, secretary-general of the Hayek Institute in Vienna, which is one of Europe's leading low tax campaigners and has also been advised by Freedom Works. 'We need to come from various angles. We have all seen what our friends in the Tea Party movement, and their march, have achieved.'"
  • "Terry Kibbe, a consultant at Freedom Works, which claims to convene 800,000 activists, told the Guardian she wants to help mobilise otherwise cerebral political institutions in the UK and Europe by helping them create grassroots activist wings."
  • ""We have been working to identify groups in Europe that would be amenable to becoming more activist-based, think tanks that could start activist wings," said Kibbe. ' . 'We have worked with the Taxpayers' Alliance, in Austria and in Italy, and we want to do more.' "
  • "... trains Tea Party activists in running mass demonstrations and provides access to bespoke-designed software to allow activists to set up powerful computer networks that would otherwise be too expensive. It has also published an activist manual and will shortly issue a 'Rules for Patriots' booklet."

Useful sources to this article? 99.24.248.105 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Zernike

... doesn't mention this organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, it does, but it doesn't tie it to David Koch, and it damages the effect of the criticisms of the New Yorker article, following. If included, it needs to be in a separate sentence following the criticisms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It also doesn't support those claims of what the AFP does; it supports different claims. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you add text that is closer to the source?   Will Beback  talk  07:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that better? I should add something about what she says about the purpose, but that should be in another section, I believe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see someone damaged my link (that) above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why were these references removed?

• Mayer, Jane (2010-08-30). "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". The New Yorker. Condé Nast Publications.
• Zernike, Kate (October 19, 2010). "Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead". New York Times.</ref>

The edit summary said "remove Mayer and Zernike as unreliable and unnecessary", but that seems incorrect. The New Yorker and New York Times both have excellent reputations for fact-checking. I don't see any WP:RSN thread that has determined these are unreliable sources. Pending a community consensus that they are not reliable, I think these references should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliability (and bias) is disputed, and is unnecessary, as the LA Times article (at least appears) to be an attempt at news coverage, rather than political commentary, so seems adequate to support statements made in the article. The LA Times was also used to support other statements. Finally, I question whether the lede needs references for statements not supported in the body. Mayer and Zernike were not used in the body, while the LA Times article is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Guanxi moved information from the body (with specific information as to who said what) to the lede. That was wrong. I'll try to restructure the added information without removing the necessary attributions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. The LA Times article should probably be removed as a source for the lede, as the lede is supposed to summarize the body, but it may need some more work to add what Mayer and Zernike said properly to the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better way of resolving the issue than deleting the footnotes.   Will Beback  talk  10:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where to put info on Koch backing?

We're looking at the choice between 2 versions:

• A) courtesy Arthur Rubin
• B) courtesy me.

(First I want to say ... Arthur - When I made the edit, I didn't see your discussion above. Sorry, it is appended to a section discussing a different topic and I didn't read the whole section. If I could change my edit comment, I would! Note that I did re-implement your removal of the YouTube video, which I completely agree is NPOV. To show good faith, I'll even re-revert to version A until we've come to an agreement here.)

My thoughts:

1) I'm not sure why version A fits in Misplaced Pages, but maybe I just don't see something. Generally we want factual statements supported by Reliable Sources. Version A looks more like 'he said - she said' journalism, presenting the reader with the statements of several parties regarding the same issue. Is it just that it's a controversial issue and other editors want to carefully present the basis for the statements? Again, that seems like journalism, not encyclopedic writing. Version B is a very well supported, factual statement, however controversial it's political implications.

2) Also, there's some question of whether it's proper in the lede; I've seen many, many ledes with footnotes and don't see a value in redundantly restating something that simple elsewhere, but I could live with the redundancy. I feel strongly that the ownership of the organization belongs in the lede.

Please let me know your thoughts. The discussion above makes me think that for once, we will actually have a reasonable, cool-headed discussion in Misplaced Pages!

guanxi (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The lede (or lead) is supposed to be a summary of the body. What you did moved a section of the body into the lede, leaving the details sourced only there. Furthermore, Mayer and Zernike, although writing for apparently reliable sources, have enough misstatements and hyperbole that (at least I don't think) we can take their statements as verified facts, at least in regard a living person. We can take Mayer's and Zernike's articles as notable opinions.

IMHO, the different levels of reliability make it difficult to summarize the article in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked the pages of several similar organizations, and there is no mention of financial donors in the lede of any of them. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded yet; it's been a busy week. I should have time this weekend. I think the world can wait :). guanxi (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

AfP has been distributing fliers in Democrat-leaning Wisconsin districts advising voters to send in their recall absentee ballots “before August 11.” The recall election is being held two days earlier, on August 9.

• Wisconsin Democratic voters targeted with Koch-funded absentee ballot notices advising them to vote 2 days after the recall election]
• AFP Wisconsin ballots have late return date.--91.39.113.246 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt call either of those sources reliable. Definitely not boingboing, im not sure about Politico, but boingboing is without a doubt unreliable. Bonewah (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a little checking around, the Wisconsin AFP issued a statement about the matter here. They claim that the flyer is meant for elections held on the 16th, and that sending them out for the 11th elections was a mistake. Bonewah (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Snyder resources

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

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

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

politically conservative

Collect, I undid your reversion of my "politically conservative" edit not to start a revert war but because your undoing broke a couple of other things (link to Washington D.C. and the citation to the same source in the body of the article). In any case your comment was that the source did not describe AFP as "politically conservative." It does in fact describe it as "conservative," and since it's in the WaPo's politics section I think it can be safely described as referring to political conservatism. In any case if the article simply said "conservative" then it would be ambiguous. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And if the source does not make the claim, we can not make the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss, if you can't find a source that says that water is wet, we won't be able to say it. — goethean ॐ 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm baffled by your responses. The source says AFP is conservative. What's the difference between conservative and politically conservative? Basically what you're both saying is that we must quote all of our sources word for word and paraphrasing is not allowed. This is in direct contradiction with WP:PARAPHRASE. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The lede already has "political advocacy" and thus "politically conservative" is not only not found in the source used, it is redundant, iterative and repetitive at best. I know it is horrid that Misplaced Pages requires that sources make the claims that we ascribe to them, but it is "da rulez." Collect (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's actually not da rulez. Da rulez is WP:PARAPHRASE, which says, "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words." Again, what's the difference in this context between conservative and politically conservative? ... Point taken about the redundancy. I propose that the sentence read "Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a politically conservative, Washington, D.C.–based advocacy group." It seems to flow better and it makes clear what "conservative" means when you read it without the reader having to finish the whole sentence first. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent change to lede and cherry pick tag

I think an explanation needs to be given before the cherry pick tag can go up. It says that "This article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group." Is there evidence of that? What group collated these quotes and which quotes are they?

The lede was changed from quoting AFP's stated mission statement to instead say AFP is "focused on educating and mobilizing citizens to favor its economic policy recommendations." That is an attempt to insert a pov, whereas giving the actual mission statement is neutral. And the quote that was added calling AFP a "conservative powerhouse" is nowhere to be found in the book that is used as reference. Also, maybe the cherry-picked tag should stay in the article if that quote is going to stay because AFP is only mentioned twice (briefly) in the 286 page book. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

conservative

I added the word "conservative" to the opening sentence of the lead. Collect reverted with the comment "'conservative' is already in the very next sentence - repetitive iterations of redundant words are not useful." Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. Currently the first sentence reads: "Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a American political advocacy group headquartered in Arlington, Virginia." Without any reference to AFP's conservatism I we're failing to tell the reader what AFP is. The AFP and conservatism are intrinsically linked. (Also, "conservative" isn't in the very next sentence, it's in the next sentence after that.) --Nstrauss (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I restored the word. It just reads better this way; it's clearer to mention it up front, not hide it in a quote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Best to leave it the way it was. --Mollskman (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So we agree that "conservative" should be in the lead paragraph. Should it be in the first or third sentence? Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

NO MORE REVERTS until this discussion is resolved. Let's try to avoid an edit war, shall we? Mollskman, "Best to leave it the way it was" is not an argument. You need to explain why you feel that way. Binksternet, this discussion is about the first sentence, not the third one. It's not necessarily either/or. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this for a re-worked lead? Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is an American political advocacy group headquartered in Arlington, Virginia that has been called "one of the most powerful conservative organizations in electoral politics.” AFP, whose stated mission is “educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing citizens as advocates in the public policy process," played a major role in the Republicans’ 2010 takeover of the House of Representatives. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Called by whom? And don't 3rd-party mentions go below the lead? Hcobb (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinions should be clearly attributed to those holding the opinion - and should not be given in any case in Misplaced Pages's voice. Collect (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, opinions should be attributed. But this group self-describes as conservative. So that warrants a passing mention. See "Americans for Prosperity Conservative Leadership Summit: "Enjoy a host of other great speakers for an afternoon of information, politics and good conversation with likeminded conservatives. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the proposed re-write. It solves the issue raised by my initial edit and addresses Collect's concern. The quote was there all along and if people have concerns about it then they can be addressed separately. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposed re-write is fine. We use quotes to avoid speaking in Misplaced Pages's voice and we can attribute the quoted material with citations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Adventurous Squirrel says the above discussion is consensus that "conservative" should not appear in the lead sentence. I disagree and changed his edit and added a source.

Um.. I'm sorry but I never said that. And please sign your posts so other editors know who is commenting. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

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

See also KochPAC

I could find no RS for adding KochPAC to the see also. I looked pretty extensively. Since KochPAC makes federal filings which are reproduced at Open Secrets it is also pretty easy to search for connections not mentioned in RS. There are none that I could find. Now the Koch brothers are deeply involved in AFP. Perhaps a see also for them would be appropriate. The PAC only gives to candidate committees, party organizations, and other PACs (usually leadership PACs apparently) in limits established by campaign law. AFP takes unlimited personal and corporate money.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you that there's an RS out there somewhere -- that's the only basis I had for associating the two even in my own mind at the time. I believe that the article was from a TV station and that it referred to a collaboration between the two organizations in an a particular media campaign. It certainly is elusive as you say, though, because I haven't been able to find it again.   — C M B J   14:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And if we find such a RS we could add it. As a note, Open Secrets has all the expenditures of KochPAC available to peruse. I could see no such expenditures. This is not surprising. KochPAC is a "hard" campaign money organization. It's hard because it has to come from individual donors under modestly sized, strict campaign law limits. AFP is an advocacy organization that is not subject to these campaign limits. They raise "soft" dollars from individuals, foundations, and corporations. It would be unexpected and (frankly) stupid for KochPAC to use limited hard dollars in contributions to an organization like AFP.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

External links

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

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

AFP and polifact

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

AFP and AFP Foundation – clarification needed

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

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

Tea Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct quotations

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

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

The lead

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

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

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

Too much detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles