Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DaltonCastle (talk | contribs) at 04:49, 31 August 2015 (→Content Up for Debate - Requesting Feedback: Added info). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Americans for Prosperity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 Mid‑importance 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 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. 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.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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:

1. Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 9, 2014). "Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity plans $125 million spending spree". Politico. Retrieved May 6, 2015. The Koch brothers' main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group. The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties' congressional campaign arms.
2. Goldman, Andrew (July 25, 2010). "The Billionaire's Party: David Koch is New York's second-richest man, a celebrated patron of the arts, and the tea party's wallet". New York magazine. Retrieved March 25, 2015. In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFPF is now Koch's primary political-advocacy group. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
3. Beckel, Michael (September 4, 2014). "The Kochs' Political Ad Machine". Slate. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved April 20, 2015. In all, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' flagship political operation, alone has aired more than 27,000 ads in a combined nine battleground states, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
4. Kroll, Andy (November 6, 2014). "2014: The Year of Koch". Mother Jones. Retrieved May 9, 2015. The Koch brothers' flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day.

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 deleted 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ♝♚ 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 ♝♚ 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)

@HughD: 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 ♝♚ 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 Misplaced Pages treats just about every other large political contributor (individuals and organizations) is not to change the way Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

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)

Additional sources

1. Campbell, Colin (April 22, 2015). "The Koch brothers are planning their 'biggest, boldest' effort ever for 2016". Business Insider. Retrieved August 2, 2015. Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs' primary political arm
2. Mishak, Michael J.; Elliott, Philip (October 11, 2014). "Americans for Prosperity builds political machine". Miami: Associated Press. Retrieved August 2, 2015. Americans for Prosperity, the flagship organization of the political network backed by industrialist billionaires Charles and David Koch.

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)

DRAFT Request for Comment: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

1. Gold, Matea (January 5, 2014). "The players in the Koch-backed $400 million political donor network". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 9, 2015. The Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics identified a coalition of allied conservative groups active in the 2012 elections that together raised at least $407 million, backed by a donor network organized by the industrialists Charles and David Koch...Americans for Prosperity , the Virginia-based nonprofit that finances grass-roots activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against President Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in the last cycle came from the Koch-linked feeder funds.
2. Gold, Matea (January 5, 2014). "Koch-backed political network, built to shield donors, raised $400 million in 2012 elections". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2015. The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors, according to an analysis of new tax returns and other documents...A key player is Americans for Prosperity, the Virginia-based advocacy organization that finances activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in that election cycle came from Koch-linked feeder funds.
3. "Americans for Prosperity". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. October 10, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2015. In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million (linked to http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-players-in-the-koch-backed-400-million-political-donor-network/2014/01/05/714451a8-74b5-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html) — with more than $44 million of that coming from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers. {{cite web}}: External link in |quote= (help)

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 #The Washington Post: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds.

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

Summary of previous arguments

Support 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.

Oppose Inclusion:

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)

DHeyward: 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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.

15:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

References:

1. Gold, Matea (January 5, 2014). "The players in the Koch-backed $400 million political donor network". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 9, 2015. Americans for Prosperity , the Virginia-based nonprofit that finances grass-roots activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against President Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in the last cycle came from the Koch-linked feeder funds.
2. Gold, Matea (January 5, 2014). "Koch-backed political network, built to shield donors, raised $400 million in 2012 elections". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 1, 2015. The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors, according to an analysis of new tax returns and other documents...A key player is Americans for Prosperity, the Virginia-based advocacy organization that finances activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in that election cycle came from Koch-linked feeder funds.
3. "Americans for Prosperity". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. October 10, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2015. In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million — with more than $44 million of that coming from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers. identified by the Washington Post
4. Roarty, Alex (January 16, 2014). "Koch Brothers Are Outspending Everyone for a GOP Senate Takeover". National Journal. Retrieved July 10, 2015. Look no further than Americans for Prosperity, the conservative outside group funded in part by the wealthy industrialists Charles and David Koch...The nonprofit organization has been a major player among Republicans in the post-Citizens United campaign finance world. It spent $140 million, $44 million of which came from Koch-backed funds, the Washington Post reported.

Background

Previous talk page discussion at Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity#The Washington Post: $44M of $140M raised in 2012 from Koch-related funds.

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

Summary of previous arguments

Support Inclusion:

1. Highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources.
2. Highly significant content summarizing a key finding of investigative journalism.
3. Funding and relationship with Kochs are covered extensively in reliable sources; coverage in article is light relative to reliable sources.

Oppose Inclusion:

1. Coverage of funding and relationship with Kochs in article is/will become undue.
2. Article talk page consensus opposes inclusion.
3. Sources are biased or inadequate

Survey

Please use this subsection to indicate support or opposition to the above question and a brief statement. Please do not included threaded comments in this subsection. Please feel free to maintain your position here as the discussion progresses. Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as this article is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you.

• Support Inclusion because...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
• Oppose Inclusion since...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed

• Support Inclusion The funding of Americans for Prosperity, the relationship between Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers, and the role of Americans for Prosperity in the 2012 elections are among the most notable aspects of Americans for Prosperity. The coverage of funding and the relationship with the Kochs is severely under-represented in this article, relative to coverage in reliable sources, so severely under-represented as to be grossly non-neutral and an embarrassment to our project. The Washington Post is among the most unimpeachable sources available to us, an international newspaper with a distinguished reputation in reporting on transparency including multiple Pulitzer Prizes for investigative journalism. The noteworthiness of the proposed content is manifest by the widespread coverage including FactCheck, the National Journal, and others. This pair of reports in The Washington Post on the results of a major investigative journalism project into the funding of political activism by the Kochs is among the most significant sources on this topic. The proposed content is neutral. Hugh (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• 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: "... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public."- MrX 18:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion as written. Support replacement of the section with a sentence similar to the proposed, with "Koch-linked feeder funds". (A required option as noted in the discussion of the draft.) Not only is the discussion here on funding disproportionate to discussion in reliable sources (most sources have only one or two facts), but some funding may be reported in more than one sentence, without it being obvious. I'll analyze the sources given to show that the statement given is not supported by the sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Changed to oppose. Thanks to Hugh, we see that we have nearly equally credible sources which disagree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion - Content is well sourced and clearly notable. Note as well this wholly unrelated reporting from NPR's election finance correspondent, Peter Overby, which notes 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." Claims that this info - or the article's treatment of the financial connections between AFP and the Koch brothers more generally - are UNDUE appear to be without foundation. See this massive list of sources and this tertiary academic source for conformation; virtually all major RS give great weight to these financial connections. Attempts to minimize them here have no basis in policy and are not NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion Numbers and figures speaking to the funding of AFP certainly belongs in the "Funding" section and the sources support the suggested inclusion. Any questions of "weight" concerns are easily dismissed by the fact that multiple sources regard Koch Industries/Koch Brothers as the primary funding behind AFP. Since they are considered the primary funding entity, they deserve coverage in relevant sections and that coverage should represent the dominant role they play as financiers. If the money they've donated only amounted to a small fraction of the group and an attempt was being made to present them as being bigger backers than they are, then I'd rightly oppose this inclusion. However, nothing suggests that's the case here and everything that is presented clearly speaks to the role the Koch brothers have in the organization.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion (see below) I'm commenting here because I commented on the previous, related WP:NPOVN notice board request made by Hugh and Hugh put a RfC note there. I don't think the citations rise to the level of rock solid. Two are from the same reporter, the third and fourth quotes cite the Washington Post and presumably said reporter. Thus all four are basically the view of one reporter. I can't see this rising to the point of being highly reliable vs something that has been reported. It appears to be reliable information but that doesn't mean Hugh has established how it should be used in the article and care should be taken to avoid WP:RSUW to the specific Washington Post claim vs the phrasing of the NPR article mentioned above. Since this RfC came from WP:NPOVN rather than from WP:RSN I will say I don't know that Hugh has convinced me that the addition or removal of the text is a WP:NPOVN issue. UPDATED: Per Hugh's request I have added a vote. I think he has established that one news organization has made this claim. What he has not shown to my satisfaction is that the sentence would or would not add undue weight to the specific claim. So I don't question the general reliability of the claim but how that information is to be used seems to be a point of contention. Hugh should give the inclusion more context before I would support inclusion in the method he has proposed.Springee (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose-ish I'm fine with well sourced funding info. The references above are all essentially one ref (WaPo). A second ref (NPR) from MrX and Fiddlestix says something similar but critically different "For 2012, tax records show that AFP got nearly $44 million from two other tax-exempt organizations in the Koch's extensive political network." So, is it almost $44 or is it more than $44 million? Is it from a network or is it from two tax exempt entities in a network? Both could be correct. Perhaps (and I'm speculating here), nearly $44 million came from only 2 entities and to get over $44 million the WaPo reporter found odds and ends to push beyond $44. Maybe the number was just rounded up. In any event the NPR ref is more specific: "tax records", "almost $44", "from two tax exempt entities". I'd go with the more specific data, hence my !vote. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, if NPR is accurate about the tax records the $44 million will have gone to AFPF the charitable affiliate, FWIW. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Lacks multiple independent sources and lacks a clear connection to the organization. It's bait for Koch Brother COATRACK material. It's SYNTH and not notable. To give a similar example a "Koch based feeder funds" standard would be like saying that any downstream org that receives money from planned parenthood anywhere in the chain is funded by abortions. It's a COATRACK nightmare if such a low standard can be connected. --DHeyward (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. High quality source by respected veteran political reporter Matea Gold, echoed by other high quality sources, plus further sources linked in MrX's and Fyddlestix's entries, show that this is an important and significant fact. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion as written, per Arthur Rubin's proposal. I support the replacement of the section with a similar sentence that was proposed in the RFC draft. The sources lack a clear connection to the article, and I feel that the statement is violating WP:SYNTHESIS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we going to survey everything previously deemed undue, POV, or coatracking back into existence? Its undue. Are you going to include this same type of coverage in Soros related foundations? Or the other donors of AFP? Are we going to slowly add back more and more POV statements to the article until we are given a survey on adding back completely arbitrary statements like "The Washington Post said taxpayers should know where there money is coming from" ? Its undue. It opens the door to POV and COATRACK. Lets just keep it out and drop this issue so we can go actually improve Misplaced Pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - single sourced, only one source for 44M.--Polmandc (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per Binsternet. IMO, the "oppose" votes seem to be more a case of making up new rules for "I just don't like it" information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - I think Scoobydunk's !vote demonstrates one of the serious problems with the inclusion of this type of statistic, bare of any sort of context: "...multiple sources regard Koch Industries/Koch Brothers as the primary funding behind AFP. Since they are considered the primary funding entity..." Since $44 million is markedly less than 50% of $140 million, and the funding of AFP was primarily from sources outside the nebulous, undefined "Koch-related" aka "-linked" aka "-backed" network. This means it is no more "Koch-backed" than it is "Groups X, Y, Z-backed", so why should we define it as such? And as I do some quick arithmetic of the contributions that are listed here like $850K from David Koch, and a million here and there from other groups across various years, I find that there must have been significant contributions from other sources to sum up to those figures. Singling Koch(s) out clearly makes the funding seem more monolithic than it truly is - the RSs do not single Koch out as the "primary funder" and presenting it this way observably has the effect of misleading average readers (and clearly even readers who are more critically analyzing the sources) into believing they do.

Furthermore, in an election cycle in which at least $6.3 billion was spent (for clarity of comparison, $6,300 million), we do little to demonstrate what the importance of that $44 million out of $140 million statistic is. To the average reader without further context, it just reads as "a lot of money". Problematic, given the policy that we should not WP:INDISCRIMINATEly include statistics without their proper context. Are we saying that the Kochs have a great deal of control over AFP's operations? That seems to be the implication; do the sources support that as well? I wasn't aware this went through RSN, so never mind the fact that the original source Matea Gold does not even explain the origin of this information, nor, as I said earlier, by what parameters her statistics include or exclude groups from the set of groups that are defined as "Koch-linked". This is unacceptable and itself untransparent. It could mean literally anything and still technically be correct. In any sort of scientific context this would render the results completely useless and they would therefore be universally ignored. Unfortunately for us, it is not. But we are still asked to use some editorial discretion and common sense in our inclusion of material. The fact that it has been repeated in a few RSs does not compel us to include it here. Without further context or better definition, the line provides very little in the way of informational value for the reader and very much in the way of POV/verifiability issues. Unless I'm missing the point. So I ask again - what exactly is this line attempting to demonstrate? Why is it important to single out this mathematically minor, poorly defined set of contributors?

To Hugh's concern, if the point is to clarify that a relationship between AFP and Koch exists, I'd point out that a "Ctrl+F" search of the page for "Koch" already yields several results (87, at present, including refs), some of which are lines on the founding and funding of the organization. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - My new BFF, AdventurousSquirrel, hit the nail on the head. Why indeed is it important to single out this mathematically minor, poorly defined set of contributors? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion: I don't think it's useful to decide what belongs in the funding section on a piecemeal, sentence-by-sentence manner. Context matters. The only way we can determine if this particular proposed content is appropriate in the article is by knowing what other content will go alongside it. I think the article should have a funding section, but we cannot know if WP:DUE weight is given to the Koch contributions unless we have a handle on what other content is to be in the section. AdventurousSquirrel makes a good point about proportionality. The sources seem to say that in 2012, the Kochs were involved in funding a bit less than 1/3 of the group's budget. Who funded the other 2/3? A fair and comprehensive funding section would discuss this and give due weight based on a percentage of the budget funded by each entity. Winning consensus for inclusion of one sentence doesn't necessarily move the ball forward on building a neutral funding section that gives due weight to each donor based on the proportion of the budget each donor has given. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per WP:LEAD which specifies that significant controversies shouldn't just be mentioned, but that they should be summarized in the introduction of the article. EllenCT (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion for reasons already pointed out by DaltonCastle and AdventurousSquirrel. Abierma3 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per DaltonCastle. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. For some reason a number of commenters seem to think we need more than one reliable source stating something for it to be verifiable. No, we only need one uncontradicted source. Here it appears we have three. The fact that the same journalist wrote both WaPo sources isn't very relevant. The author is a veteran reporter with 20 years of experience at top-flight newspapers, and both of her pieces were fact-checked by WaPo's highly reputable editorial staff. Then we have FactCheck.org repeating the same statements. FactCheck.org is one of the most reliable sources there is. The proposed language appears to accurately reflect these sources without any improper synthesis. All three sources specifically call out the Kochs' contributions to AFP, which given these sources (and many others) is highly noteworthy and not at all undue. I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Summoned by bot. The Koch brothers supplied 30% of AFP's funding in 2012, this was notable enough that WashPo reported it, and readers at our AFP article would want to know. All the WP:OR that has come up in discussion, about large sums of political money given by entities that are not the Koch brothers, are interesting but irrelevant to this article about AFP and the Koch brothers who fund them. Lastly, complaints that the Koch brothers are getting a hard time on Misplaced Pages push aside the obvious policy questions concerning the scope of our article about AFP (and its funding), and the reliable sources we use to determine the relevance and weight of material. Instead, we get a bunch of vague arguments about how unfairly the Koch brothers are treated. That's irrelevant to this article, and trust me, the Koch brothers will be fine. -Darouet (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. The language is neutral as stated and is reliably sourced. In the post-Citizens United era of dark money, it is difficult for people (including our readers) to ascertain the origins of campaign contributions. Where possible, and with clarity, we should be allowed to report on the conclusions of reliable sources. gobonobo 00:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As a note, this is not a 'post-Citizens United' organization. It has been in existence since 1984 doing the same things it does today. Nothing has changed in this org as result of the Citizens United decision, which is why there is not a single discussion of it (Citizens United) or reference to it at this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion because Americans_for_Prosperity#Funding only mentions quite small donations at the moment, and is unbalanced without this big one. I think the Washington Post should be attributed in the prose, as this is some sort of leak that has not been corroborated by other news sources. I don't see that this is an unwarranted or unbalanced attempt to tar the Koch brothers or their corporation, who seem proud of their association with AfP, despite wishing to keep this donation secret. I made other comments about my position in the threaded discussion below. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I struck a sentence from my response, as I forgot about the NPR source that MrX introduced into the discussion. That source should be cited: its significant differences demonstrate its independence. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of a neutrally stated fact. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The RfC should be formatted something along the lines of ArthurRubin’s proposal noting that the current coverage of the Kochs is excessive and that the funding section be replaced with “Of the $140M AFP raised in the 2012 election cycle, more than $44M came from Koch-linked feeder funds”. And to touch on DHeywards’s point, WP:CONSENSUS was already met on this issue. Opening up new discussions over the inclusion of content that has already reached consensus multiple times is not not beneficial and prohibits users from improving the quality of the page. Thanks. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of the Koch brothers is not excessive. Anyone who thinks that it is needs to familiarize themselves with what RS actually say on the subject (credit to Aquillion for that list and their thoughtful contribution on this point above), and to check out some high-quality, academic sources like this one and this one - both of which make it clear that the Koch connection is the central point of interest for most academics who have studied AFP. Also, as both myself and MrX have noted above, the supposed consensus which some editors keep citing here does not appear to exist. Activity on this page was recently the focus of both an AE and an ANI thread because people are not listening to each other and letting their emotions get in the way. So: please stop hand waving about a pre-existing consensus that never was: focus on the arguments and evidence, and leave your baggage at the door. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Also note that there is a previous consensus for exclusion, so that an overriding consensus would be required. (The consensus, although weak, does exist. All participating editors other than HughD agreed to exclude the material, as well as some other material now restored by a drive-by.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, can you provide a link to the discussion where this consensus was developed, please? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: can you clarify what you mean by "replacement of the section?" It's not clear to me what content/section you'd like to see removed and replaced, perhaps you could be more specific. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC) moved Hugh (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The entire paragraphs on funding of AfP, not including comments related to transparency. (Transparency is a separate issue.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Thanks for clarifying. Still waiting on you to link the discussions where the consensus you refer to above was discussed and developed. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You understand that consensus occurs when decisions to add things are rejected. The article is defacto consensus when proposals to change it fail. --DHeyward (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to be patronizing, I understand perfectly well how consensus works. Perhaps we shouldn't derail this discussion further by going off on a tangent about what consensus is or isn't, though; the result of this RFC will supersede any (alleged) local consensus anyway. I was simply curious what discussions Arthur was basing his statement on, if he'd rather not give specifics, that's fine. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

An RfC on Talk:Americans for Prosperity about the content of the Americans for Prosperity article doesn't supersede local consensus. It demonstrates local consensus. If some other RfC on an appropriate Wikiproject or noticeboard applies to multiple articles, then WP:CONLIMITED comes into play. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

1. Sources 1 and 2 (by the same author in the same publication) has $44M only in the context of "Koch-linked feeder funds". They mention a donor network organized or backed by the Kochs, but that seems to be the entire Kochtopus, and doesn't mention a dollar amount.
2. Source 3 doesn't presently have a URL, but your quote has $407M for the Koch organization as a whole (for unspecified years), and $44M for "Koch-based feeder funds".
3. Source 4 quotes the Washington Post as saying "Koch-based funds".
4. NPR says "two other tax-exempt organizations in the Kochs' extensive political network".

I don't see "a donor network organized by the Koch brothers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million — with more than $44 million of that coming from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers" appears verbatim (I just copy-pasted that) in this source (factcheck.org). @HughD: did you mean to link this as part of your "source 3" above? Fyddlestix (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disingenuous as you failed to note the embedded link in factcheck.org. "reportedly raised" is linked to the WaPost article. It's blue in the artcile. It looks like this: "AFP reportedly raised $140 million" Follow the link and you will see that factcheck.org is not doing an original report, they are reporting what WaPost said. --DHeyward (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: 'I don't see "a donor network organized by the Koch brothers"' It's bolded. Should I make it all caps? Hugh (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Thanks for your comments. The title is linked in source 3, isn't it? It works for me. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: You're correct. I probably had one too many tabs open earlier and got confused, my bad. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not near the $44M, but near the completely different $407M. But let me check again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Kochtopus is not in the proposed content or in any of the refs. Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and refs. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
2. The title is linked. Hugh (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
3. The National Journal did not use the exact same words as The Washington Post. They paraphrased. Sort of like what some of us do. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
4. Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and refs in the RfC above. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That wording seems significantly different, to the point that it seems to be synthesis to assert that it's the same $44M or Koch-related organizations. For what it's worth, most of the articles also include the $407M, and I have no idea where that came from. It's probably the sum of the funding of all the Koch-related organizations, as there is no easy way to eliminate double- (or triple-) counting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Further reasons for reducing the section.

1. Each fact has a single source (there are few sources which have more than one fact)
   1. There are different (sets of) organizations and (sets of) years, so there may be overlap.
   2. Including them all together would encourage readers to add the totals, which we could not do, being WP:SYNTHESIS.
2. Some of the facts have limited relevance. The last time I checked, there was a $500,000 entry which is out of $140 million or so. That would be less than 0.3%, even though we might not be able to say that in the article, if the $500,000 and $140 million were from different sources.

(The fact that the information can only come from reports of the funding organization, not of AFP, could be somewhat relevant, although that is also overweighted at the moment. But we are not discussing the "transparency" section in this RfC. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"reducing the section" Please help us all focus on the above RfC, which proposes a one-sentence addition. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the draft discussion, the RfC needs to include the option of replacing the funding section with the corrected sentence. You ignored that fact when you opened the RfC. The RfC should probably be considered null as too biased if that option is not included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This RfC and its draft are both one sentence adds. I'm sorry you are not happy with that. This RfC does not propose removing any content. On the first day of an RfC for a one-sentence add you are on recorded planning how to get it nullified. As you know you have venues for contesting the close if it comes to that, but you're not worried, are you? why not wait and see how it turns out. Your opposition to the question of this RfC is noted above in the survey, thank you for that. Please consider a separate RfC to embody your interpretation of our due weight policy that the appropriate coverage of the funding of AFP is one sentence, take some time to think it through and build your case based on policy and guideline and I look forward to reading your position. Please do not be disruptive here on his RfC. Hugh (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a political faction on Misplaced Pages that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible.

Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:

 Top Organization Contributors

 RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1%

 2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0%

 3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1%

 4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4%

 5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0%

 6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1%

 7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100%

 8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52%

 9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7%

 10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2%

 11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1%

 12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58%

 13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6%

 14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100%

 15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47%

 Source: 

BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.

Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/

While we are not bound by what those other pages do (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), there is a good reason why the editors of those other pages don't treat the other large donors the way the Koch brothers are treated here. It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.

Misplaced Pages should give the same WP:WEIGHT to donations and criticisms of same no matter which side they support. And large numbers of left-leaning blogs and news sites all talking about the Koch brothers doesn't really show that it is widely reported when 99% of those stories are the direct result of comments about the Koch brothers by the democratic party and by president Obama. Proper weight would be a NPOV section (not in the lead) reporting what the president accused them of and what their response was. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"There is a political faction on Misplaced Pages that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible."

Just in case you're not aware of it, editors of this page are subject to discretionary sanctions. Your comment doesn't seem very helpful at all.- MrX 01:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Any admin is free to take action if he or she thinks that expressing an opinion concerning a systemic bias is deserves a discretionary sanction. Of course I will be royally pissed off if said admin fails to fist post a note to my talk page asking me to stop doing whatever he or she thinks I did wrong so I can stop and discuss. I think that I can easily demonstrate that there is indeed a a political faction on Misplaced Pages that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, and that other major political donors don't get the same treatment. I am apolitical, but against POV pushing of any kind on Misplaced Pages. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to work with you to include the President's noteworthy comments and noteworthy reactions, but not in this thread, thanks. A few nice sentences doing exactly what you suggest was recently deleted. One thing at a time, ok? Is this a cross-post from ANI? If so please replace it here with a brief summary and link. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a separate discussion from ANI. ANI deals with user behavior, not article content, and the fact that I believe that there is a systemic bias is relevant to the user behavior ANI is examining. The fact that I believe that there is a systemic bias is also relevant to article content, whch of course should be discussed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Above in your brief statement of position in the survey you asked, "Why indeed is it important to single out..." Coverage of the subject of this article's relationship with the Koch is not an expression of systematic bias, it is an expression of our commitment to our neutrality pillar: a fair, unbiased summary of high quality reliable sources requires coverage of the Koch relationship, of funding, and of the results of investigative journalism, however incomplete a picture investigative journalism reveals to us. May I respectfully suggest Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias may be an appropriate forum for you to collaborate with colleagues on the pattern of bias you perceive. Here in this RfC on this article talk page please familiarize yourself with the high quality reliable sources used in this article and update your position. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to try actually reading Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias before suggesting that editors talk about political bias in articles there (and conveniently, not challenging your assumptions here) That's not the kind of bias that project addresses. Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias may also be helpful if you want to understand the nature of the systemic bias that I and other editors are attempting to deals with. WikiProject Countering systemic bias specifically does not address the kind of political bias we are discussing here, other than the obvious fact that we, like many other Misplaced Pages editors are talking extensively about US politics while politics in other parts of the world are neglected. That's a real problem, and one that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is working hard to rectify, but they don't care at all about bias for or against particular US political views and against others.

The relevant pages for the kind of bias that I am seeing here (cherry picking sources that put the Koch brothers in a bad light while ignoring other major political contributors) are WP:BIASED, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and especially WP:POVS. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you oppose the above proposed content because it unduly increases our coverage of US politics? Hugh (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying the above proposed content puts the Koch brothers in a bad light? How so? I believe the above proposed content is neutral. Hugh (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already given my reasons for opposing several times -- POV pushing. Search this page for my name for more details on my position. Right now I am (unsuccessfully, it seems) trying to explain to you that your comment ("I respectfully suggest Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias may be an appropriate forum") is completely wrong, because the "systemic bias" that wikiproject deals with is not political bias resulting in POV pushing. If you learn nothing else from this discussion, please learn not to suggest WikiProject Countering systemic bias as a place to discuss systemic political bias. It doesn't belong there and wastes everybody's time.

I still haven't seen a real response from you to the following (From AdventurousSquirrel's oppose !vote):

• "The fact that it has been repeated in a few RSs does not compel us to include it here. Without further context or better definition, the line provides very little in the way of informational value for the reader and very much in the way of POV/verifiability issues. Unless I'm missing the point. So I ask again - what exactly is this line attempting to demonstrate? Why is it important to single out this mathematically minor, poorly defined set of contributors? To Hugh's concern, if the point is to clarify that a relationship between AFP and Koch exists, I'd point out that a "Ctrl+F" search of the page for "Koch" already yields several results (87, at present, including refs), some of which are lines on the founding and funding of the organization."

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"...what exactly is this line attempting to demonstrate?" Thank you for your question. What we can expect readers to take away from the proposed content above, is that the subject of this article raised $140M in the 2012 election cycle, and of that, more than $44M came from a network of donors organized by the Koch brothers. Sorry if this is not clear to you. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: And what is the significance of this data? Keeping in mind that our goal is to provide good encyclopedic coverage of the topic and that more comprehensive funding information can be found elsewhere in places which by the nature of their format can inherently provide better context and more complete presentation for this kind of data, what sort of lasting value does this proposed addition lend to the article for the benefit of the reader? What is the significance of the money having reportedly come from the "donor network organized by the Koch brothers"? Certainly, arbitrary lines are not being inserted into this article simply because they both relate to the subject and appear in RSs. So what is the significance of this line in particular? Any "key finding of an important investigative journalism report" prominently displayed in an encyclopedia article should be able to easily stand on its own with sufficient context and explanation as required by WP:NOT and common sense. And again - unless I am missing something, this line, as proposed, isn't providing that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Any editor is welcome to reply to questions or concerns raised in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post, the National Journal, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center all thought the content proposed by this RfC question is significant. I'm sorry you do not. Hugh (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you are sorry that I do not. But if you're trying to build consensus to support the addition of this line, why not explain to us, then (as I have requested many times), why you believe it is significant? Again, RSs include plenty of things about all different kinds of topics that are not appropriate for inclusion in encyclopedic coverage of the topic. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for suggesting that the above RfC propose content is "not appropriate for inclusion in encyclopedic coverage" of Americans for Prosperity? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you may! Please refer to my other comments in this thread to you and others in which I outline my main objections to this proposed addition. But I think you forgot to respond to my question again. Since the standing consensus on this article currently excludes the proposed addition, shouldn't those wishing to insert it be explaining the way(s) in which it will provide better encyclopedic coverage of the topic? I'm not sure why it's so difficult to pin this down. I think my questions have been pretty straightforward, and I truly apologize if I'm mistaken in thinking so, but I'm just struggling to understand how this proposed addition will improve the article, given the potential problems with it I and others have pointed out. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"how this proposed addition will improve the article" The proposed addition will improve our article by informing our readers that the subject of this article raised $140M in the 2012 election cycle, and of that, more than $44M came from a network of donors organized by the Koch brothers. Sorry if this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are simply repeating the same non-answer. We already know what changes you want to make to the page. Please explain why you think those changes are beneficial when so many other editors think that they are not. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are not happy with my answer. May I expand, the proposed addition will also improve our article by fairly summarizing more reliable sources. I hope this helps. Sorry if this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC) The proposed addition is significant because it was featured in The Washington Post, FactCheck, and the National Journal. I hope this helps. Sorry if this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's perfectly clear to me and to everybody else. You think that the only criteria needed to put the content that you want into an article is that it be supported by reliable sources even though you are utterly unable to articulate why you think that we should include the content into the article or how it benefits the reader. Somehow the significance of the fact that there are millions of other facts that (in your view) are supported by reliable sources that aren't in the article escapes you. Carry on with your ongoing WP:BLUDGEONing; I am done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in this request for comment. I'm sorry my answer is inadequate. Perhaps we could hear from others of our colleagues on your question. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD's answer was (1) to inform readers about the fact, and (2) to improve the article. One may quarrel with his answers, but one cannot claim that he did not answer the question, which was why he thinks the changes are or were beneficial. Those were his answers. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the threaded discussion section of this RfC. If you have not done so already, you may or may not be interested in contributing to the survey section, above. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you'd have to provide sources that place emphasis on other groups funding AFP for there to be a violation of WP:Biased. That's how NPOV works, it's not a term people get to just throw around when they don't like what reliable sources say. If there were numerous sources, some of them emphasizing Koch funding, some of them emphasizing Adelson funding, some of them emphasizing ground-roots funding, then it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to strictly write the article placing an emphasis on Koch related funding. In this example, the editors are being biased in writing the article to reflect their POV about koch related funding while ignoring other funding that is also represented/emphasized in reliable sources. However, if there are no articles/reliable sources placing an emphasis on other AFP funding groups, then it is not a violation of NPOV to ignore them when writing the section. As a matter of fact, to give those other groups importance when no reliable sources articulates their importance, is the actual violation of WP:NPOV. Hugh's proposal is backed by numerous reliable sources and unless you can prove that other reliable sources give other funding entities equal importance as the Koch related funding, then arguments about WP:biased and WP:NPOV are fruitless and inapplicable. Simply, there are no other point of views when it comes to primary funding that counter the Koch related funding point of view.

Now, even if you find sources that speak to the importance of other funding groups, this is where WP:weight policies come into place. We examine the number of sources that reflect Koch-related funding compared to sources that emphasize other related funding and make sure that those viewpoints are covered in the article relative to the amount of representation they have in reliable sources. So if Hugh as 7 sources that place importance on and speak to Koch funding the AFP and you find 1 source that places importance on another group, then the article will clearly reflect what the 7 sources say, with MAYBE a brief mention of your 1 source that holds an alternative viewpoint.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your time and commitment. Please let us try to depersonalize our discussion. "The RfC proposed content..." please. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's try and keep the red herring arguments and down to a minimum. We're here to discuss Misplaced Pages policy regarding the information in the RFC and I've yet to see anything substantiated by those policies that would oppose including the information. So far all I'm seeing in the way of opposition are "I don't know"s and "but they aren't doing it" which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you may have a case of WP:IDHT. I don't see how the argument by AdventurousSquirrel in particular can in any way be characterized as "I don't know" or "but they aren't doing it". Dismissing the opinions of over half of the respondents to the RfC as "red herring arguments" while ignoring the principled arguments they posted in not helpful. I suggest that in the future you stick to arguments about content and sources and avoid comments about other editors. -Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd advise you to take your own advice. This statement of yours "It appers that you may have a case of" is a direct criticism of me as an individual and doesn't address my arguments. Furthermore, I didn't comment about other editors, I commented on the validity of their arguments and said that they are red herring arguments. So your suggestion doesn't apply to me in this instance, but certainly does apply to your previous comment. Multiple people opposed speak to other articles that don't approach funding in the same way, which is irrelevant to this article and the fact that sources do discuss funding they way Hugh's suggested inclusion claims. That means they are red herring arguments and red herring arguments are logically fallacious in determining the validity of a claim. Hugh says this information should be included because of WP policies XYZ, and instead of actually citing policies, many of those opposed make irrelevant appeals to how other articles are written or should be written as a result of this. This is me addressing those arguments and explaining why they don't have merit, which is what my previous comment suggested.

Furthermore, if you want to speak specifically about AdventurousSquirrel's contribution, it largely hinges on OR claims which are irrelevant to what gets reflected in the WP article. He starts by using math to try and discredit what reliable sources have to say about Koch related funding and its importance. Sorry, but you are not allowed to use your own arguments to try and refute what reliable sources actually have to say. Therefore, it is red herring argument because it doesn't address what policies WP has to refuse this information being included into the article and is not relevant to this RFC. This is not a place where editors get to debunk what reliable sources actually say. He then talks about us doing little to "demonstrate what the importance of that $44 million out of $140 million statistic is" which, again, is not our responsibility as editors. Reliable sources are the ones that establish importance, we simply write the article to reflect that importance. Now, if he had other articles that placed the emphasis of funding on other entities, then he might have a point with making sure the WP article reflects those other articles. But if his position isn't supported by reliable sources, then it's irrelevant in terms of NPOV, because his position is not represented in reliable sources and, therefore, doesn't even exist as a POV. Not to mention, multiple reliable sources do cite Koch as being the primary funding for AFP, so this part of his statement is just inaccurate. So, that's 2 red herring arguments right off the bat. He then questions the reliability of the source's statistics, which is another example of him trying to refute reliable sources. We are not here to debate what scientists actually say, we're here to write articles to reflect what scientists say. So this is another red herring argument and CAN be dismissed as simply that.

So, ultimately, Squirrel's only arguments boil down to context and NPOV which are both problematic. In reality, his comment is trying to create context to muddle/refute what reliable sources have to say about AFP's funding from the Koch brothers, since they mostly don't put emphasis on other funding sources. This approach is against WP policy regarding original research and NPOV. Also, Squirrel does say towards the end of his comment "unless I'm missing the point" which is an example of one of the "I don't knows" that I was referring to. This is exactly why most of Squirrel's comment and those who parrot it, can be ignored in terms of arguments that have actual basis in WP policy for preventing exclusion. Multiple reliable sources put an emphasis on AFP and its funding from the Koch family, there is no confusion about that. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. "Do understand that your argument primarily consists of red herring arguments". "Squirrel's comment and those who parrot it". "this is a strawman argument". You have amply demonstrated your personal opinion of AdventurousSquirrel, and now you are accusing everyone who agrees with him of "parroting". I do not consider this to be acceptable behavior, and thus I am going to stop responding to anything you write. Feel free to have the last word -- I plan on skipping over it rather than reading it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, all of those things you quoted directly speak to the "arguments" people were making and are not about the people themselves. So this is another false accusation. Furthermore, when people say "Oppose Inclusion for reasons already pointed out by DaltonCastle and AdventurousSquirrel." Then that is literally people parroting someone else's arguments that are wholly and fully logically fallacious and have no backing by WP policy. I'm also not surprised that you didn't to attempt to refute my rebuttal, not a single person has any of the times I've debunked the red herring arguments made by others.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: Which sources "cite Koch as being the primary funding for AFP"? I've seen some which call AFP something like "Koch’s primary political-advocacy group", but that line was the subject of a different RfC and does not directly relate to the funding we're discussing here. I don't recall seeing anything saying Koch is AFP's "primary funder". And in fact, as I tried to explain, the data in the sources we're talking about contradicts that claim. The fact that it is presented in numbers and not words does not mean it can be dismissed from the RSs. The "math" I was using is not any type of OR - it is a pretty straightforward, inescapable conclusion drawn from the figures presented in the sources we're discussing. See WP:CALC. And I'm not sure what the objection to my 'I don't know' is, as it was simply an invitation to editors supporting the line's addition to explain its purpose - something which should be pretty simple to do for a significant, well-sourced line, I think - and something which I strongly believe has still not been done adequately. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel: My use of "primary" relates to the numerous articles that emphasize the Koch brothers as the founders of the organization and speaks to the nature of the Koch's being the first funding of the AFP. It does not speak to being the largest donors, but being of importance because of the attention given to it by multiple reliable source. However, I did come across a peer reviewed article when doing my own research, but thought the sources here were sufficient. In "The Greening of America Revisited: Can the U.S. Create High-Skill Green Jobs?" published in the New Labor Forum, Andrew Ross says "But it soon became clear that AFP had masterminded the campaign. Primarily funded by the Koch family..." They say "primarily", so if you protest "primary" then we can use "primarily funded". I'm okay with that. The math itself might not be OR, but the conclusions/assertions of "most" and "least" is where the original research comes in. It's not merely a simple calculation, but a claim based off of your own observations about the information available. This is not what WP:Calc speaks to. For instance, they use a person's age as an example. If someone was born in July, 2000 then it's a simple calculation to say they are 15. However, it would be OR if you said "they are the youngest/oldest person" based off of those calculations. WP:Calc strictly stops at the math part and doesn't allow people to draw their own conclusions from those calculations. Not only that, you certainly can't use your own conclusions to try and refute what reliable sources actually say. Even from a "primary source" vs. "secondary sources" point of view, that approach would become invalid since reliable secondary sources take priority over primary sources, and these calculations would come from a primary source. Regardless, it's original research to use your own calculations to try and disprove what reliable sources say. The importance of the line comes from the amount of weight given to it by reliable sources. Numerous reliable sources emphasize the importance of the Koch brothers and the amount they've donated to AFP. That is way more than sufficient for recognizing the importance of this line and meriting its inclusion into the article. Normally WP only requires a single reliable source, and here was have many.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: Well that is not at all an equivalent situation. It's clear we have all of the information necessary to calculate the example's age with complete certainty, and almost none of the information necessary in the second part of the example to make the claim that the example is the "the youngest/oldest person". On the contrary, we have all of the information necessary to calculate that $44M is less than 50% of $140M from the proposed addition we're talking about, and AFP was therefore primarily funded by groups/individuals who were considered to be not "associated"/"linked" with Koch, by whatever arbitrary measure the original author decided to use and not expand upon. No further information is needed to come to that conclusion. Which I think should highlight another potential problem with using this kind of data. What definition of "primarily" is the New Labor Forum source using to make that claim? For what year was it true? Because apparently, it was not true in 2012. We have to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and what we write should ideally not have constant expiration dates. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel:The whole point was that they were not equivalent examples. WP:Calc clearly applies to one and doesn't apply to the other. Your determination of which contributors are "'associated'/'linked' with Koch" is the ORIGINAL RESEARCH part. You're grouping and separating contributors based on your own perception of what is/isn't significant is also OR. Then you want to use your own understanding of the word "primarily" to try and dispute what a reliable source says, which is also OR. Just about every piece of your argument is a violation of WP's policies concerning original research. Again, "primary/primarily funded" doesn't have to mean "majority funded" and this approach is a red herring argument since multiple sources clearly speak to the Koch brothers as having founded the AFP. That clearly meets the definition of "primary" that speaks to chieftain, most important, earliest, most prominent, original, etc. Trying to say "Oh, they don't provide the majority of funds" is an irrelevant argument to the fact that they are regarded/emphasized in academia and in the media and those are the sources that WP represents, not your own arithmetic and arguments based on said arithmetic. To say "AFP is primarily funded by groups and individuals not associated with Koch" is an original research claim based off of a primary source(of some sort) and does nothing to refute what peer reviewed academic sources say. Whenever there is debate about what reliable sources mean, it's easily rectified by directly quoting and attributing the material. So even if you still want to stick to your OR argument, we can just directly insert the quote into the article if you're so concerned about what "primarily" means. Also, your usage of it to mean "majority funding" is a direct contradiction to Misplaced Pages not being a newspaper and goes against your position that "we should ideally not have constant expiration dates." This is because the "majority" of funds is constantly changing. The other definition from any of the choices I gave above relating to earliest and/or foremost, is not something that "expires" since the AFP will indefinitely be known as being founded by the Koch brothers. We now have a quoted peer-reviewed source that says "primarily funded" and the importance and reason why the text submitted in this RFC should be included is determined by the fact that there are multiple reliable sources that give this information weight/importance. None of your calculations refute this fact.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: I have made no determination of which contributors are "'associated'/'linked' with Koch", because it would be impossible for me to do so, as the original source (confoundingly) obfuscates which contributors are even actually included in the figure.

Yes, I understand that you gave two opposing examples; I am saying that contrary to what you have attempted to do, it is more correct to equate this case to the first example than to the second. This is because like the calculation of the example's age, the line we're discussing in this RfC provides all of the necessary information (assuming it is accurate and meaningful) to arrive at an inescapable conclusion - in this case, that Koch-linked sources were not the "primary" funders of AFP in 2012. Saying "$44M of $140M came from Koch-linked groups" is exactly equivalent to saying "$96M of $140M came from sources not linked to Koch"...except it's a little less POV-pushing, given that it is phrased from the perspective of the majority segment. Though whether or not it faithfully represents the intent of the source is perhaps another matter. I am certainly not alone in 'my own' understanding of the word "primary", and accepted definitions of it frequently include "majority" (the thing you say it is not) or synonyms of it, like "mainly" or "for the most part". Particularly in the context of quantitative data like we're discussing, I think it has to mean "more than 50%". A few of the top results after a quick search reflect that same usage: 1, 2. But no matter what your opinion on the matter is, I don't think it could possibly be at all a stretch to think readers would be likely to interpret that statement that way.

I'm not sure why we keep mixing in discussions of founding with funding. Though they may sound similar, there is no direct relationship between the two. I really don't think "primarily funded by" can be taken to mean "originally/initially funded by". AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel:Based your most recent reply, your assertion that $96M came from sources not linked to Koch is actually a violation of WP:NPOV since you're taking something not emphasized by reliable sources and changing the language to fit your own point of view. Here, you are the one adding emphasis on the "non-linked Koch sources" which is not how the information is presented in reliable sources and is a violation of a neutral point of view. NPOV pertains to representing sources/information accurately without inserting our own bias, not changing language and emphasis when we don't like it. After re-reading your comment, I see you recognize this aspect of your rephrasing, but will still verbalize the distinction here because it's important. The argument is still a violation of WP:OR since you're still making a strawman argument based on a narrow interpretation of "primarily". Also keep in mind, there are two different arguments here and it appears you keep trying to combine them into one argument, which can be seen as a violation of the WP:Synth part of WP:OR. The first argument deals with the fact Koch gave $44 million out of $140 million to AFP. This has been substantiated through multiple reliable sources and what gives the Koch funding importance is the fact that they are the ones emphasized in all those sources. This is a fact you keep failing to refute, yet you still continue to ask others "why is it important?". You've been told why, multiple times. The second argument is that the AFP is primarily funded by Koch. This is substantiated by a peer reviewed source, that doesn't use the 44/140 argument, and therefore those numbers are irrelevant when attempting to refute it. To try and use those numbers from other sources to say "The AFP is not primarily funded by Koch" in an attempt to refute a source that doesn't speak to those numbers is where the synthesis comes in. It really doesn't matter what your argument is, it's never going to take precedence over the strongest type of reliable source available and you're mistaken if you think your own personal arguments are going to have any relevance in refuting what reliable sources actually say.

Also, "founding" and "funding" are often times directly related because people who "found" something often times "fund" them as well. This is not always the case, but here it's clear that the Koch brothers both "founded" and "initially funded" the AFP, so they are directly related in this case. Furthermore, you say "in the context of quantitative data like we're discussing" which is a strawman argument. Never ONCE have I said that my usage of the word "primary/primarily" is related to the quantitative data...NOT ONCE. I specifically said that I used it to refer to the initial funding and founding of the AFP, which is still a correct usage of the word. You then asked to me supply a reliable source that supports that language and I did. Now, if I didn't have reliable source to back my usage of the word "primary/primarily", then you could argue for less ambiguous language, but now that I have a peer reviewed source, that language is directly substantiated and is no longer simply a result of editorializing or POV concerns...unless you find equally reliable sources that beg to differ. Of course, I'm happy to review those sources and use language that most neutrally satisfies and encompasses the majority of those sources. Regardless, this discussion about "primarily" has no relevance to the RFC and is a red herring argument. So let's focus on the proposed language and the policies that might prevent it from being included in the article. So far, all you've given are your own OR arguments for why it shouldn't be included, and those are ultimately irrelevant. It's backed and given weight/importance by multiple reliable sources and the language neutrally reflects what those sources say. You've yet to supply an argument to support excluding this information that hasn't already been thoroughly refuted. Let's recognize this first, then we can continue discussing...whatever.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well said, Scoobydunk. It's absolutely true that a purely numerical argument cannot trump a reliable source that makes no numerical argument. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I've no idea if there's truly "a political faction on Misplaced Pages that wants to demonize the Koch brothers." Without any faction, the Koch brothers have gained enough notoriety in the media upon which we rely to easily create that illusion. Editorially excluding Koch-related coverage on the notion that sources overemphasize them commits the very sin of "POV-pushing" you write you want to avoid.

You provided a fascinating table showing financial contributions above, and wrote, "it simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like." I'm one of billions of people who'll never have access to those resources, and along with plenty of journalists, academics and editors, disagree. If you believe that equitably covering political funding is crucial, you will be able to improve politics articles by informing readers about financial contributions that receive insufficient coverage. If however you maintain that money pouring into politics just isn't relevant, you'll find yourself striking content provided by disagreeing journalists, academics and editors with little cause beyond that conviction, and ultimately harm politics-related articles. -Darouet (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that "you'll find yourself striking content but only if the contributor is the Koch brothers" is more accurate. There is no mention of political contributions in our articles about the Las Vegas Sands ($69 million dollars in political contributions, 100% to republicans) or United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ($67 million dollars in political contributions, 94% to democrats), nor does our Las Vegas sands article mention the politics of CEO and 52% owner Sheldon Adelson. Misplaced Pages simply does not find it to be particularly notable that billionaires give millions of dollars to political causes they like unless the billionaires are named Koch. This has nothing to do with sources -- there are plenty of sources for all the other billionaires giving millions of dollars to political causes they like -- but rather with an organized effort to violate our rules concerning NPOV in articles relating to the Koch brothers. (I should also note that I have never edited this page, I am uninvolved other than commenting on this talk page after I was notified of an RfC here).--Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If the sources for the contributions by LVS and UBCJA are as strong as those listed in this RfC, I think that Misplaced Pages should mention those contributions, as well as adding the sentence HughD proposed. The coverage by the sources, as well as the size of contributions compared to those made by small donors, makes the contributions noteworthy in my book. Guy Macon suggests that adding these donations violates NPOV, yet both republicans and democrats agree that the Kochs made these donations, which makes the mention neutral. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Those other articles are irrelevant to Americans for Prosperity, so making an appeal to the information they articulate is irrelevant. If reliable academic and media sources make a source of funding notable, then it's our responsibility to have the article reflect that. It is not WP editors spotlighting contributions, it's those sources that spotlight it and we are simply writing the article to reflect what numerous sources say about the subject matter. This is consistent with WP guidelines and the underlying basis of how ANYTHING and EVERYTHING gets included into articles to begin with. Red herring arguments are disruptive as they detract from an actual WP policy discussion about why this information should/shouldn't be included in the article. This approach has already been refuted on multiple fronts, let's please refrain from repeating logical fallacies and focus on actual relevant policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 01

@Springee: Thank you for your engagement with this RfC. Please move your comments to this threaded discussion area if you are not going to take a position on the question of this RfC, thanks. In terms of verifiability, one source, The Washington Post is sufficient. For Misplaced Pages purposes the number of authors does not matter as much as the number of editorial staffs; between the four refs above are three quality editorial staffs. The $44M and $140M figures got passed three editorial staffs. The third and fourth refs cite the first and second; that's not an issue, that's the noteworthiness of the proposed content. Hugh (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: "not shown to my satisfaction is that the sentence would or would not add undue weight to the specific claim." Our due weight policy very strongly endorses inclusion of the proposed content in this article. The funding of Americans for Prosperity, the relationship between Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers, and the role of Americans for Prosperity in the 2012 elections are among the most notable aspects of Americans for Prosperity. The coverage of funding and the relationship with the Kochs is severely under-represented in this article relative to coverage in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: Please see our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS:

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.

Please let us know if you have any questions on our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS. Please update your statement of position to reflect your understanding of our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. It does not sufficiently address my concerns on the mater. Springee (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: Above in your statement of position you wrote "all four are basically the view of one reporter" and "one news organization has made this claim." How do you reconcile this position with your new understanding of our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS? Please update your above statement of position to reflect your understanding of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Please move your comment on MrX's statement to this threaded discussion subsection. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem if MrX wishes to move his new sources to the "Sources" section of the threaded comments. A drive by list of unchallengable sources in the Support/Oppose section warrants a threaded response right underneath those misleading and poor sources. It's not related to the proposal and things like a KC star letter to the editor is being misrepresented as an article. Considering other editors are citing MrX's "sources" as their reason for support impliease they are misinterpreting both the sources and the RFC.. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward please move your rebuttal to my !vote to the threaded discussion section. The RfC is specifically structured so as not to permit threaded rebuttals.- MrX 16:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to all for citing additional reliable source references in support of their statements of their position or in their comments in the threaded discussion comments. All are welcome to cite references which support or contradict the content posed in the above RfC question. Please help us all out, and in particular show consideration for our closer so they do not have to hunt through threaded discussion in search of statements of position. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Thank you for your support of well-sourced funding info.

Overby, Peter (March 6, 2014). "Running Against The Koch Brothers". National Public Radio. OVERBY: Phillips is also president of AFP's companion charity organization, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. David Koch is the foundation's chairman. Long-time Koch associates serve on the boards of both groups. For 2012, tax records show that AFP got nearly $44 million from two other tax-exempt organizations in the Koch's extensive political network.

Of course National Public Radio and Overby are reliable sources in general, but in this particular instance I believe you may be reading too much into the exact wording of a transcript of a radio interview to attempt to undermine the references included in support of the above RfC. The NPR interview does not explicitly cite The Washington Post's investigative journalism report, though I believe the NPR report adds noteworthiness to the proposed content. As you know from your thorough reading of the main sources, The Washington Post investigative journalism reports, The Washington Post found that just two organizations, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and TC4 Trust, dominated the donor network organized by the Koch brothers, so there is no contradiction in the NPR transcript; however, at this time explicitly calling out these two funds by name is not part of the content proposed by this RfC. NPR is not among the references included in the above RfC. Respectfully I feel that, in using discrepancies you perceive in the wording of a paraphrase in a transcript of a radio interview to discredit the references supplied with this RfC, you are giving it too much consideration in your evaluation of this RfC question relative to the superb references included in support of the above RfC, and I respectfully ask that you reconsider your position. I believe you have an excellent opportunity here to show leadership in support of more broad understanding among our collaborators of the appropriate application of our neutrality pillar. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone here has shown great deference to neutrality. I do like accurate data and believe that we should be as accurate as possible. I would suggest that if we are to be accurate we should give the improtant detail. If both the WaPo and NPR refs say that two orgs gave almost $44 million, why don't we adjust the RfC to meet what the refs say? I'd be supportive of that. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion of including additional detail from these excellent sources. The proposed content is a succinct summary of the reliable sources. You state that you would prefer "...from Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and TC4 Trust" to "...from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers" May I respectfully ask, might your preference be in part because the RfC proposed content mentions the Kochs and your suggestion does not? Your suggestion introduces new proper nouns to the article, which are not strictly necessary to the proposed content, and would require additional context for clarity for our readers. I know you would not make a suggestion that deliberately makes our article less clear. Given your expressed interest in increased detail drawn from our reliable sources, may I respectfully ask, might you support:

"...from from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers, including the now defunct TC4 Trust, the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the major funding arm of the network, and the Phoenix-based Center to Protect Patient Rights, a major funder of conservative groups in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles."

I look forward to collaborate with you on adding additional detail from these excellent sources to our articles. Respectfully I ask again that you reconsider your position on the RfC proposed content in light of the RfC proposed references and in light of your stated commitment to a fair summarization of reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Comatmebro: Thank you for your comment. Thank you for citing specific policy. As you know, our reasons are more important than our votes. May I respectfully ask, could you please elaborate on what you feel is unclear about the connection of the sources to the subject of this article? Could you please elaborate on your feeling that the proposed content is synthetic? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the connection is unclear because there is only once source supporting the 44$M statement. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. May I ask, how does the striking agreement between the sources make unclear to you the connection between the sources and the subject of this article? All the sources unambiguously, explicitly state "Americans for Prosperity." The content proposed in the RfC is supported by four references that include three high quality editorial boards. For Misplaced Pages purposes, we have three sources. The $44M figure was reported by all three editorial boards. The acknowledgement of The Washington Post by FactCheck and the National Journal does not mean the editorial boards at Annenberg Public Policy Center and the National Journal looked the other way, and it does not mean there is only one source. In terms of verifiability, The Washington Post alone is sufficient. May I ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for your claim that content on Misplaced Pages must have more than one source? My impression is that much of Misplaced Pages has only one source. Here, even if it were one source, which it obviously is not, that one source would be The Washington Post. Do you have an issue with The Washington Post? FactCheck and the National Journal support the verifiability and noteworthiness of an already very highly reliable source. As you know, a version of this content was posted for comment at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, linked above, and no commenter there mentioned your theory that the sources are not connected to the subject of this article, and no commenter there mentioned your theory that there is only one source, and no commenter there mentioned synthesis. Please review the previous reliable sources noticeboard discussion linked above in the RfC and please reconsider your position on the sourcing. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

National Journal cites the same WaPo article as everyone else. KC Star isn't an article it's a "Letter to the editor" in which one "Robert Russell" from "Kansas City" plagiarizes the WaPost story (I will ask them to yank that unreliable copyright vio). NPR statement by interview host doesn't match the wording. --DHeyward (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC) (moved from survey section) Hugh (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

NPR is sloppy and as interview it should be discounted. First, NPR says "In 2012" not "2012 election cycle". the tax returns are available and in 2012, AFP took in only $115 million. 2011 has to be added to get to $140 million of the RFC . Second, nearly $44 million and over $44 million are not the same and given the discrepancy by year, I don't think they are reliable as they are off cuff umbers to generate conversation, not accurate reflections of accounting. If anything, they big takeaway is that no one knows the exact numbers as is stated in nearly all the sources. --DHeyward (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not the privilege of editors to try and refute/debunk what sources say, which is all your comment amounts to. If you disagree so strongly with a source, you are welcome to write an article and get it printed by a reliable publication which can then be used to combat what sources say. However, this would remove you from the discussion since it would be a conflict of interest. Until then, reliable sources will not be "discounted" due to your own OR arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the main value of the NPR report cited in the comments is not toward verification, rather if anything perhaps toward noteworthiness of the proposed content, and that's why it is not included among the references in the above statement of the question of the RfC; please help us all focus on the RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Please move your comment on one of your colleague's statement from the survey section to this threaded discussion section. No one jumped on your statement. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

When reliable sources (with approximately the same degree of reliability) disagree, we include all or none. Since the Washington Post reporter and the NPR reporter have comperable creditability, and we have not seen any source commenting on either one, we must include both statements (without noting the contradiction) or neither. I side with neither. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that NPR simply made a simple mistake in their reporting. That doesn't negate other sources who did not make the same mistake.- MrX 04:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

... on the other hand, NPR was probably referring to this this and this which does show $44 million, while Washington Post did say more than $44 million, and referred to the 2012 election cycle.- MrX 04:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no disagreement between the refs in the RfC. The $44M and $140M figures were published by all three editorial boards of the refs in the RfC. The agreement is compelling. Furthermore, there is no disagreement between the refs in the RfC and the NPR transcript. The Washington Post carefully specifies the period of their study as the 2012 election cycle, which thanks to AFP includes late 2011, and the scope of their study as the network of donors, and reports "more than $44M"; NPR specifies the year 2012 and two organizations and reports "almost $44M." Please move your comment on one of your colleague's statement from the survey section to this threaded discussion section. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I seriously urge anyone reading this, and in particular the closer, to analyze the "one source" claim that some of the participants in this RFC are making critically. I don't question that many of the sources which make the "$44 million" claim can be linked back to the initial investigative report by Matea Gold of the Washington Post. But this does not mean that sources which recognize & repeat this claim are somehow the "same" source, or that the claim itself is less valid.

Just because multiple sources contain the same information does not make them "one source," and if anything the repetition of facts uncovered by Gold in other (reliable, high-quality) sources speaks to the weight, reliability, and significance of her reporting. You might as well argue that half of what's been written about Watergate is "one source" because it repeats claims originally made by Woodward and Bernstein.

Also, the attempt to make something out of a discrepancy in the exact amount of funds being reported (ie, was it just over or just under 44 million) is an obvious red herring. All of the sources report a figure of approximately $44 million, and that is the salient, indisputable fact here. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Polmandc: The content proposed in the RfC is supported by four references that include three high quality editorial boards. In Misplaced Pages terms we have three sources. The $44M figure was reported by all three editorial boards. FactCheck and the National Journal citing The Washington Post is acknowledgement, it does not mean the editorial functions at Annenberg and the National Journal went on vacation, and it does not mean there is only one source. In terms of verifiability, The Washington Post alone is sufficient. FactCheck and the National Journal support the verifiability and noteworthiness of an already very highly reliable source. Please review the previous reliable sources noticeboard discussion linked above in the RfC and please reconsider your position on the sourcing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Polmandc: Last month a version of this content was posted for comment at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Americans for Prosperity funding proposed addition from Washington Post. No commenter there mentioned your theory that there is only one source. Please review the previous reliable sources noticeboard discussion and reconsider your position on the sourcing. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As one of the people who replied to that noticeboard request, the question, "is this really just one source" was not asked. It is clear that the WP is generally a reliable source. You might be able to argue the fact has more merit by pointing out the 3rd and 4th sources who decided it seemed reasonable enough to repeat the claim. That the WP reporter made the claim twice doesn't mean much. Please don't imply something that was not asked or implied in the noticeboard discussion. Clearly the issue has been mentioned here and should not be dismissed. As an outsider I see you working very hard to get a single line into the article based on the basis that "it is reliable". That doesn't mean it has way you wish to include adds value to the article. As presented I see it as a single line that begs a question and I think the coatrack comments are probably legitimate. I think you need to make a case for why the comment is of merit and why it shouldn't be seen as coatracking, non-neutral POV, etc. Concentrate on answering those questions and I think you will have a stronger case for inclusion. That would probably be a new discussion since the phrasing of the included text would have to change. I hope that helps you come up with a proposal that meets with sufficient support. Again, this is my outsider POV.Springee (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The source and the quote meet WP's reliability and verifiability standards. Therefore, it has every right to be included into the article. Now, if you or others want to argue that it doesn't deserve to be included, then the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that it violates another standard which is why it shouldn't be included. An argument for coatracking hasn't been substantiated. There is a section in this article that is labeled "Funding" and this information is exactly what the section addresses. Where it gets its money from and the quantity of that funding is not an attempt to shoehorn irrelevant information into the article about an unrelated topic. Even more relevant is the fact that multiple reliable sources put emphasis on the funding of AFP and its connection to Koch Industries, and, therefore, the article should reflect what those reliable sources say about the matter.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As I'm not trying to edit the article I'm not sure I need to do anything. I don't think just showing that something is from a reliable source is sufficient to merit inclusion but if there is a Misplaced Pages guideline that says otherwise I will be wiser if you can provide a link. Springee (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here you can find information about how to contribute to Misplaced Pages, which then directs to the five pillars and other policies regarding making contributions.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I see two sections which may be of value in answering my question, possibly three. The first two would be WP:NPOV and possibly WP:OR. The inclusion of that single sentence might beg the question and thus lead the reader to a conclusion that is not supported or referenced to a source. If that conclusion isn't supported then I would take that to be an WP:OR issue. If the source does support it then it still might be WP:NPOV. I think others have claimed that and I'm not sure Hugh has sufficiently responded to those concerns. The other issue pillar might be WP:NOT. While I appreciate the link, it hasn't answered my question. Springee (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: I think you need to be more specific. What is the conclusion that you're suggesting the source might not support? Fyddlestix (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see my earlier question. I haven't stated this is WP:OR. My question was how do we decide if a singular fact or sentence should be included even if we can find a single reliable source which says that single fact is correct? Scoobydunk provided a link as an answer but having read it I don't feel the question was answered. The comment about WP:OR was speculation on my part, not a claim of it. I apologize if it came off as such. That said, I do think that a reader, seeing only that sentence might be left to jump to their own conclusions. That might be an issue with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think this is something Hugh should address. Springee (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: "a reader, seeing only that sentence might be left to jump to their own conclusions" Readers will not see "only that sentence". The proposed content is an addition to the "Funding" section. We should expect that readers, upon seeing the proposed addtion, will jump to the conclusion that the subject of this article raised $140M in the 2012 election cycle, and of that, more than $44M came from a network of donors organized by the Koch brothers. Sorry if this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: The allegations of coatracking and non-neutral POV are clearly meritless here if you actually look at what reliable sources say. Have a look at Aquillion's sources here and at how reliable, academic sources treat the subject. (those are just some examples, I could cite a lot more if needed). As you can plainly see, the vast majority of reliable academic and media sources focus on almost nothing but the financial links between AFP and the Koch brothers, and very nearly all of them identify the group as "Koch funded" or "Koch linked" or as the "Koch brother's" group (or some variant thereof). To anyone with even a passing familiarity with what the reliable sources actually say, the idea that this information and sources is undue, coatracking, or not consistent with NPOV is frankly laughable. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Roberts, Robert North; Hammond, Scott John; Sulfaro, Valerie A. (2012). "Americans for Prosperity". Presidential Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms: The Complete Encyclopedia. Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313380938. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
   • First sentence: "Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) is an antitaxation advocacy group founded in 2004 and financed by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries of Wichita, Kansas."
2. Theda Skocpol, Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (Oxford University Press, )
   • "After the CSE breakup, Americans for Prosperity continued to enjoy direct funding and leadership through Koch Industries and the Koch brothers," p. 145.
3. Lawrence Rosenthal, Christine Tros Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party (University of California Press, 2012).
   • AFP was “funded by the brother David and Charles Koch. Multibillionaire owners of the petrochemical conglomerate Koch industries, the brothers aggressively pursue the conservative vision of their father, who was a founding member of the John Birch Society.” p. 32.
   • “Houston organizers communicated with Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch family, to recruit speakers. p. 112.
4. Allan J. Cigler, Burdett A. Loomis, Anthony J. Nownes, Tony Nownes, eds. Interest Group Politics (SAGE/CQ Press, 2016).
   • Calls AFP "David and Charles Koch’s organization Americans for Prosperity - perhaps the most influential organization in today’s conservative movement.” p 38.
   • “If the TPM has generated a host of local organizations and substantial popular support, it has also received considerable backing from elite, national organizations, some of which long predated the movement’s 2009 emergence. In particular, right-wing groups FreedomWorks and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity worked within the TPM to extend their reach into a large new audience and prospective activists.”
5. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (OUP, 2011)
   • “Especially important are the roles played by the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks front groups in generating a significant portion of the ‘Tea Party’ and encouraging it to focus on climate change.”
6. Wendy L. Hansen, Michael S. Rocca, and Brittany Leigh Ortiz, "The Effects of Citizens United on Corporate Spending in the 2012 Presidential Election," The Journal of Politics, Vol. 77, No. 2 (April 2015), pp. 535-54
   • "the Koch brothers of the private Koch Industries created their own conservative Super PAC called Americans for Prosperity that spent $33,542,058 ."
7. Nella Van Dyke, David S. Meyer, eds. Understanding the Tea Party Movement, (Ashgate, 2014).
   • “When faced with the charge that the Tea Party movement really represents only the interests of its generous benefactors, the Koch brothers, Tea Partiers like to cite Goerge Soros, the billionaire currency speculator who has bankrolled political efforts for civil liberties generally. The easy equivalence is deceptive; it’s hard to see how decriminalizing drugs, for example, serves Soros’s business interests in the way relaxing environmental regulations supports the Kochs’ businesses; the scope and scale of the Tea Party’s dependence on large capital may indeed be unique.” 177.
   • “Koch and his allies created libertarian institutions to try to create a free market base to the Republican Party that counters its reliance on conservative evangelicals. While the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity has accommodated the social conservatives, other institutions like the Cato Institute and Freedom Works appear less happy with conservative Christian elements powering parts of the Tea Party and promoting the anti-Muslim storyline.” 102.

Thanks for the reply. In that case I would suggest that the sentence needs to be better integrated into the article. It currently has little context and thus the reader is not told what to think of the information. That is an issue an WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. This has been my primary concern since I replied to the neutrality noticeboard topic. Springee (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE Exists to discourage/bar exhaustive or excessive lists/compilations of information. I could see it applying if HughD was trying to list how much money the Koch's donated every year, or put in a table of AFP's funding or something. But adding one (clearly notable) stat, which multiple articles refer to, and which reliable sources make clear is not UNDUE, is - in my opinion - hardly the kind of thing that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was written to rule out. I recognize we may disagree on that, but personally I don't see how that policy applies at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable but I think the text needs to be integrated into the article. Again, just stating it begs too many questions. The articles which originally mentioned the donations would have had a context. That context should be carried into the article. I think Hugh can answer the questions I'm asking and the entry will be better for it.Springee (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"just stating it begs too many questions" I'm sorry that you find the proposed content so confusing. It is straightforward. With all due respect to your editorial prowess, have you noticed that the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the National Journal both decided to include the proposed content, pretty much as is, without re-iterating the entire Washington Post report. Thank you for your support for adding additional relevant content from this and other sources. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Please support this proposed content. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, can you please be more specific about what you see as the appropriate application of our WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy to the above proposed content? I do not see any song lyrics or excessive listing of statistics in the proposed content. Please be more specific. Thank you. The content proposed by this RfC question is discriminant. The Washington Post, the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and the National Journal all thought it was noteworthy to report to their readers the magnitude of the support of Americans for Prosperity in the 2012 election cycle. We can, too. Context for the above proposed content in the article is already more than adequate, including the role of the Kochs in the founding and funding. The above proposed content states nothing other than the proposed content. Please help us all focus on the above proposed content here in this RfC discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Many of the sources speak to how AFP is a sort of front organization to represent the Koch family's businesses interests regarding the environment and climate change. I'm sure we can provide that context so the reader knows EXACTLY the reason why academic sources and other reliable sources bring attention to these details.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Polmandc: Please see our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS:

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.

Please let us know if you have any questions on our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS. Please update your statement of position to reflect your understanding of our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS. Hugh (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Polmandc: Above in your brief statement of position you wrote "single sourced, only one source." How do you reconcile this position with our content guideline WP:USEBYOTHERS? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post is reliable and reputable, and only one source.--Polmandc (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. May I ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for opposing the above propose content? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: Please help us all focus in this thread on the above RfC question. Your comments on other subjects, other possible content, and possible future RfCs, and your expression of concern about what the article might become, are inappropriate here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel: Do understand that your argument primarily consists of red herring arguments and original research attempts to refute what reliable sources say. Misplaced Pages is suppose to reflect what the strongest reliable sources say, not what you have to say about reliable sources. To combat reliable sources you need to present your own reliable sources of equal reliability to contend with the claims being made. Your own OR interpretation of the numbers behind AFP's financing are irrelevant.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Which Misplaced Pages guidelines help decide the information is of merit? A reliable source might tell us they use a janitorial service instead of hiring janitors. What guideline do we use to tell if such information is of merit?Springee (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Merit is established by Misplaced Pages Guidelines regarding WEIGHT. If a subject receives an appropriate amount of coverage in reliable sources and is relevant, then it deserves to be included into articles. This is how we establish the merit of articles when they're first made to begin with. All of the subsequent information should be covered in reliable sources. Clearly there are numerous articles and sources that discuss Koch Industries, so a WP article about Koch Industries exists. Clearly there are numerous sources that discuss the funding behind Koch Industries, therefore a section regarding "funding" exists. Finally, there are numerous sources, including academic sources, that speak to Koch Industries' role in funding AFP and how prevalent they are to the initial funding of AFP, therefore that information also deserves inclusion. Those reliable sources give information/claims/facts/opinions merit through their coverage, we aren't the ones who establish "merit" we simply write the article to reflect what the reliable sources say about the subject.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: Primarily? I think Inigo Montoya would have something to say about that. Most of what I wrote is not an opinion at all. Rather, it was the restatement of facts from very sources we're discussing. To your point on refuting it: nothing truly can "contend with the claims being made" because the claims being made are never actually defined, and can therefore technically describe literally any group. Ostensibly there is some "link", but without saying how close or what kind of link, there is no real value in including this statement, is there? What does it actually mean? What are readers supposed to take away from that statement? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Most of what I wrote is not an opinion at all", this is a strawman argument because red herring arguments and OR arguments are not limited to opinion. This RFC is to discuss the inclusion of information as presented by numerous sources. Instead of discussing policies relevant to establishing its inclusion, you decided to try and debunk/refute those articles with your own OR arguments. That would be the equivalent of trying to debunk multiple scholarly works speaking to the Earth being round by you saying "nu-uh, because XYZ". Your arguments are not relevant to what those sources actually say and it's not our responsibility as editors to try and debunk what sources say. That's why your response was primarily a giant red herring argument. Also, a number of those sources articulate the "link" behind Koch Industries and AFP as describing AFP as a sort of front to push climate denialism and anti-regulation to benefit their funding companies' bottom lines.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel: "search of the page for "Koch" already yields several results (87, a present, including refs)," Your plea to be careful with statistics early in your statement of your position seems to be undercut by your assertion late in your statement that the article includes 87 references to "Koch." Your statistic includes titles of reliable source references, and excerpts from reliable sources included in the references. Of the 87, perhaps a handful are in the body of the article. You do well to remind reviewers of this RfC discussion that reliable sources include extensive coverage of the relationship between Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers, and that the coverage in the body of this article so severely under-represents reliable sources so as to be grossly non-neutral and a serious embarrassment to our project. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: Yes, I said "including refs". My statistic is infinitely better defined than the one we're discussing. Do the refs added to the article proportionally reflect all available reliable refs on the topic? So we're all on the same page, what percentage of the article, in your opinion, should discuss the influence of the Kochs in order to avoid further embarrassment? And rather than criticizing the figure I think I was adequately transparent about, how would you respond the main questions I pose in my comments? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"what percentage of the article, in your opinion, should discuss the influence of the Kochs in order to avoid further embarrassment?" Please help us all focus on the content proposed by the RfC question here in this RfC question discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: Yes, that is what I was attempting to do when I asked if you had any response to the questions I asked regarding this proposal. I just thought it would be rude and confusing of me not to respond to your comment about the coverage of the topic, which (I think) was the main point of your initial reply to my !vote. Thank you. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"this type of statistic" The $44M figure and the $140M figures are not statistics. They are raw numbers. They are dollar amounts. They are a key finding of an important investigative journalism report from The Washington Post. Are you perhaps labelling them as statistics to support your application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Hugh (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I follow:

sta•tis•tic (stə-tĭsˈtĭk)
n. 1. A numerical piece of information.

But in any case, I think that is somewhat beside the point. Is your argument that we should indiscriminately include raw numbers as long as they are not "statistics"? If these figures are indeed a key finding, it should be no difficult task to explain their significance. So I ask again, what is it you wish readers to take away from this piece of numerical information, and why should this minority contributor, in particular, be singled out? Thank you. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What I expect does not matter, thanks. What we can expect readers to take away from the proposed content above, is that the subject of this article raised $140M in the 2012 election cycle, and of that, more than $44M came from a network of donors organized by the Koch brothers. Sorry if this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all the conscientious editors who are talking the time and energy to clarify the proper application of our neutrality pillar for our colleagues here in this request for comment discussion. The neutrality of this article is a concern of many editors. All editors are welcome to respond to the objections to the proposed content. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Thank you for your support. I agree with your overall assessment of the most of the opposing positions. As deficient as the opposing positions are, a few us are trying hard to work with our collaborators to enrich their understanding of our pillar of neutrality. Please continue your engagement with this request for comment discussion. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: Thank you for your eloquent support for an expanded funding section. Of course you support an expanded funding section, because you understand that the very definition of neutrality is with respect to coverage in reliable sources, and the funding of the subject of this article is widely covered in copious reliable sources. "Winning consensus for inclusion of one sentence doesn't necessarily move the ball forward on building a neutral funding section that gives due weight to each donor based on the proportion of the budget each donor has given." Every sentence we add that summarizes more significant viewpoints from more reliable sources is an improvement to our project. I'm sure you do not intent to hold an improvement hostage to the perfect. As the funding section clearly explains, we will never have a complete funding picture. Coverage in Misplaced Pages is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, not proportional to some whole you prefer. A donor who contributed $1 could make it into Misplaced Pages if the contribution got enough coverage in reliable sources. Please reconsider your position on this RfC question in the light of your thorough understanding of our due weight policy. Hugh (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: "we cannot know if WP:DUE weight is given to the Koch contributions unless we have a handle on what other content is to be in the section" The RfC question is very clearly a one-sentence add. You know exactly what other content will go along side it: the current content. Please help us focus on the current RfC question here in this RfC threaded discussion area. Your expressed concerns about other possible future content are off-topic. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 02

RfC publicized at WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:ORN, and WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Hugh (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I think you have moved from simply informing to spamming the boards with this RfC. Your initial post was reasonable. The follow up round of postings on the 17th looks like you are simply unhappy with the outcome of the RfC and thus you are hoping for a different outcome the second time. The third time is almost certainly a violation of the guidelines regarding spamming and cross posting. In addition to needlessly updating every possible legitimate noticeboard, you also posted in unrelated article talk pages, ] ]] ]. I would suggest you revert those edits. Springee (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion. Please refrain from comments on editor behavior in this RfC threaded discussion. Other venues are available to you for your concerns regarding editor behavior, including but not limited to user talk pages. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There clearly is not a consensus to add your proposed material. Cross posting and spamming to get more eyes here is against the notification guidelines. If you do not chose to voluntarily close the discussion it will be posted to WP:ANRFC. It would be best to admit you couldn't get consensus this time and move on to the next edit. Springee (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Your one-on-one comments to a colleague and comments on editor behavior are off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. This RfC has been and will continue to be publicized in conformance with WP:RFC and WP:Discussion notices. This RfC will have an administrative close after 30 days, that is, 6 August 2015. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, my one on one comments to other editors are not related to this topic. What is related to this topic is your failure to conduct this WP:RFC within the site guidelines. Those guidelines do not allow for repeated posting of notices just because you are unhappy with the answers you are currently getting. We would thank you in advance for cooperating with site guidelines when soliciting editors. So far I don't believe you have. Springee (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Your speculation as to the motives of your colleagues is off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Please assume good faith. Please refrain from disrupting this RfC threaded discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, please show that you aren't acting in bad faith by following RfC guidelines. Springee (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a comment on WP:ANRFC in an attempt to have a third-party administrator close out this RfC. Please let this comment serve as a notice to all participating editors that I have requested that this RfC be closed by an uninvolved admin. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is currently marked as being a part of four WikiProjects: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Organizations, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States. I find it a bit odd, to say the least, that the RFC has been posted at just three of four of those projects. Can anyone guess the missing one? Ah, WikiProject Conservatism! Interesting! Yet the RFC has somewhat randomly been posted to the Citizens United v. FEC talk page, while being omitted from the WikiProject talk page of a project that the page actually falls under. Interesting oversight. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of wide, diverse community feedback on this request for comment. Your assistance in publicizing the RfC in complaince with WP:RFC and WP:Discussion notices is welcome. Template:please see is useful. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I find this to be an example of canvassing, egregious and inappropriate. Notifications are supposed to be spare and not lobbying to tee up specific responses. This RfC should be ended it is becoming so poorly handled. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Hugh has engaged in selective notifications that appear to have a canvassing angle. Luckily, in this case the problem is easily remedied by posting a note at WikiProject Conservatism. I'll also note that just because that WikiProject is conservative doesn't mean its members have a conservative bent. I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your concerns regarding editor behavior including but not limited to user talk pages. Your comments on editor behavior are off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on this article talk page. Please refrain from disrupting this RfC threaded discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually my comment here was quite on-topic and constructive, not disruptive, and your unwillingness to acknowledge that isn't helpful in the least. Just look at the army of haters you've collected in the last few months. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your one-on-one comments to a colleague and comments on editor behavior including but not limited to user talk pages. Your one-on-one comments to a colleague and comments on editor behavior are off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Please refrain from disrupting this RfC threaded discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DrFleischman's comments are directly relevant to what is being discussed in "Arbitrary section break 02." They are also directly relevant to the RfC itself, as all editors should work to ensure the RfC follows RfC policy, which states "Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." Thus, DrFleischman has not been "disrupting this RfC threaded discussion." On the other hand, repeatedly ignoring the concerns of other editors (6 different editors have now called you out for improper canvassing) is disruptive. Abierma3 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your one-on-one comments to a colleague and comments on editor behavior including but not limited to user talk pages. Your one-on-one comments and comments on editor behavior are off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Please refrain from disrupting this RfC threaded discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Please move your comment on a colleague' brief statement out of the Survey section and into the Threaded Discussion section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hroðulf: Thank you very much for your participation in this RfC, including the threaded discussion and survey. As an aside, for your information, The Washington Post explains that their source was not a leak, but rather an analysis of tax filings in collaboration with the Center for Responsive Politics, corroborated with interviews. We agree the NPR source strongly supports the main idea of the proposed content. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, you have made 58 comments to this RfC so far. Responding that many times makes me think that your purpose for posting this RfC was not to get a fair assessment of the community consensus but rather to get your way. (I am at 16 comments, which is at least 10 too many) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the above proposed content and relevant content policy and content guidelines here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your one-on-one comments to a colleague and comments on editor behavior including but not limited to user talk pages. Your one-on-one comments and comments on editor behavior are off topic here in this RfC threaded discussion on an article talk page. Your speculations on the motives of your colleagues is inappropriate. Please refrain from disrupting this RfC threaded discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I speak for the community when I write: knock it off. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: As a note, this is not a 'post-Citizens United' organization. It has been in existence since 1984 doing the same things it does today. Nothing has changed in this org as result of the Citizens United decision, which is why there is not a single discussion of it (Citizens United) or reference to it at this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC) (move comment from survey section to threaded discussion, Hugh (talk))

Climate change organization ?

AFP is not a climate change group and should be removed the list of climate change organizations. Since the Koch brothers's primary business is oil, they may have used AFP to advance their opinions about global warming. But that's not the same thing as being an organization devoted in part or in total to the scientific study of the changing climate. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this article is devoted in part to defeating regulatory responses to climate change through lobbying legislators and grass roots lobbying. Category:Climate change organizations based in the United States is not limited to organizations involved in the scientific study of climate change; other types of organizations are also included. For example, several organizations involved in advocacy related to climate change are included in the category; specific examples include the Sierra Club, the Cooler Heads Coalition, the Heartland Institute, Vote Climate U.S. PAC, Climate Hawks Vote, Forward on Climate, Young Voices on Climate Change, and others. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't address the point that this isn't a climate change org. The other organizations all have a focus on the climate and environment. It is clear that AFP does not, that climate is way, way down the list of priorities. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rissa here too. It's not an appropriate category for this group. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"The other organizations all have a focus on the climate and environment." The category is climate change organizations in the US, not climate change and environmental organizations in the US. The Sierra Club and the Heartland Institute and others have diverse agendas including climate change and are included in the category. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

According to multiple reliable sources, and according to our article, the subject of this article played a key role in influencing the US policy response to climate change. AFP was important in creating the Tea Party movement and in encouraging the movement to focus on climate change. AFP's "No Climate Tax Pledge" campaign played a key role in turning back cap & trade in Obama's 1st term. AFP supports fossil fuel development, including expanding off-shore drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline, and opposes renewable energy tax credits. At the state level, AFP works to thwart and repeal renewable portfolio standards. AFP has announced plans to spend on negative advertising against political candidates who support environmental regulation in 2016. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No one seems to agree with this edit/cat. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus. A group that deals with climate change as part of a broader agenda on energy and/or the environment can be fairly labeled as a climate change group, since climate change is a huge part of broader policy debates on energy and the environment. A group that deals with climate change as one of many parts of a much broader agenda that goes way beyond energy and the environment cannot neutrally be labeled a climate change group absent reliable sourcing explicitly to the contrary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 29 July 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#Americans for Prosperity is the Koch's primary political advocacy group 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Capitalismojo, 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 ." 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 Misplaced Pages.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)

Content Up for Debate - Requesting Feedback

With user HughD's topic ban coming in today I wanted to open up a discussion pertaining to the material recently added by the editor. I would like to address the content here and see what everyone thinks should, and should not be kept on the page per WP policies and guidelines. If an RfC is needed to determine whether or not this material should be kept or removed, I would be happy to put one together as well:

1. AFP has been funded by the Kochs and others..
2. In 2011, the AFP Foundation received $3 million from the foundation of the family of billionaire Richard DeVos, the founder of Amway, making the DeVos family the second largest identifiable donor to the AFP Foundation.
3. According to NBC News, The New York Times and others, some of AFP's policy positions align with the business interests of the Koch brothers and Koch Industries, including its support for rescinding energy regulations and environmental restrictions, expanding domestic energy production, lowering taxes, and reducing government spending, especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
4. According to Bloomberg News, with AFP the Koch brothers "harnessed the Tea Party's energy in service of their own policy goals, including deregulation and lower taxes....As the Tea Party movement grew in the aftermath of Obama’s election, the Kochs positioned Americans for Prosperity as the Tea Party's staunchest ally"

Let me know what you guys think. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Comatmebro: - I hope you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of adding the relevant refs to the sentences you picked out, and numbering the items to facilitate discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Item #1 is a simple statement of fact that is backup up by the vast majority of reliable sources on the subject. We could probably swap in some higher-quality refs to support the statement, but it is exceedingly well documented in RS.
• Item #2, footnote #7 is not a great source (it's just an infographic), and it's not clear to me why we're singling out DeVos (the other article discusses multiple AFP donors). It's a good source of information for identifying who some of the main donors to AFP are, but we could probably phrase that sentence differently.
• Item #3 is, again, a clearly accurate statement that is backed up by a very large number of high-quality reliable sources. So much so that I don't see the need to attribute it to NBC, the York Times, etc. This statement is accurate and well-documented enough to be stated as fact in wikipedia's voice. Certainly, it should not be removed.
• Item #4 is basically just an attributed quote that backs up Item # 3. Again, this is one of salient facts about AFP that reliable sources place front and center. We can talk about whether we need the Bloomberg quote (I can probably replace it with one from an academic source or three that say exactly the same thing), but basically there's nothing wrong with that content - it's entirely accurate and one of the most salient facts about AFP that this article should highlight.

Sourcing on all of this can be supplemented as needed - there are lots of high-quality sources on AFP out there that can be used to back these statements up further. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems more-or-less reasonable. In regard point 3, I thought there was a source for the assertion that some of AFP's policy positions oppose the business interests of Koch Industries. If so, it should be added, especially if (as I tend to agree) the claim is made in Misplaced Pages's voice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a few concerns with some of these items. On item #1, sure it is accurate and reliably sourced. But didn't someone way back in this talk page find out that the Koch's aren't the top funders of AFP? So saying that any funding from the Kochs is notable entirely because they are Kochs hints at COATRACKING. No one seems to want to enact this policy with any of the other "billionaire philanthropists" who pour money into politics (of which the Kochs are nowhere close to the largest contributors).

On item #3, why say AFP policy aligns with Koch views? Why not phrase it like "AFP supports conservative/libertarian views"? But if you do agree to keep this, why is it in the Background section at the top of the page and not a criticisms section? This page has plenty of COATRACKING issues; that is, it hints at something akin to "the Kochs are buying American politics". Even if this were true there are scores of other philanthropists doing the same thing on a much larger scale and to say that the Kochs are bad guys and not anyone else is POV, UNDUE, COATRACKING.

On item #3, lower taxes are not a Koch goal, they are a conservative and/or libertarian goal. Next, the Koch's didn't move AFP like a chess piece into a realm of support for the Tea Party. AFP itself did that. This item seems to have some of the same issues as the one I have listed above. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The intended implication of #3 (if the sources didn't actually say that; I haven't checked) is that AFP reflects the financial goals of the Kochs and Koch Industries. There are sources stating that some of the goals of AFP are contrary to those goals, but their reliability and independence have been questioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Then how is that in the Background section? If its kept on the page, shouldnt it be way down in a criticism section? Claiming that allegations AFP aligns with financial goals is notable for the background just does not add up. It was not founded to help the Kochs financially. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:49, 31 August 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
• Mid-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
• Misplaced Pages pages under discretionary sanctions