Jump to content

Talk:Americans for Prosperity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Creation reasons

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

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

Xenodata 01:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Zernike

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

Well, actually, it does, but it doesn't tie it to David Koch, and it damages the effect of the criticisms of the New Yorker article, following. If included, it needs to be in a separate sentence following the criticisms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It also doesn't support those claims of what the AFP does; it supports different claims. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you add text that is closer to the source?   Will Beback  talk  07:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Is that better? I should add something about what she says about the purpose, but that should be in another section, I believe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I see someone damaged my link (that) above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Why were these references removed?

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

The edit summary said "remove Mayer and Zernike as unreliable and unnecessary",[1] but that seems incorrect. The New Yorker and New York Times both have excellent reputations for fact-checking. I don't see any WP:RSN thread that has determined these are unreliable sources. Pending a community consensus that they are not reliable, I think these references should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliability (and bias) is disputed, and is unnecessary, as the LA Times article (at least appears) to be an attempt at news coverage, rather than political commentary, so seems adequate to support statements made in the article. The LA Times was also used to support other statements. Finally, I question whether the lede needs references for statements not supported in the body. Mayer and Zernike were not used in the body, while the LA Times article is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Guanxi moved information from the body (with specific information as to who said what) to the lede. That was wrong. I'll try to restructure the added information without removing the necessary attributions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. The LA Times article should probably be removed as a source for the lede, as the lede is supposed to summarize the body, but it may need some more work to add what Mayer and Zernike said properly to the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a better way of resolving the issue than deleting the footnotes.   Will Beback  talk  10:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where to put info on Koch backing?

We're looking at the choice between 2 versions:

  • A) [2] courtesy Arthur Rubin
  • B) [3] courtesy me.

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

My thoughts:

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

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

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


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

The lede (or lead) is supposed to be a summary of the body. What you did moved a section of the body into the lede, leaving the details sourced only there. Furthermore, Mayer and Zernike, although writing for apparently reliable sources, have enough misstatements and hyperbole that (at least I don't think) we can take their statements as verified facts, at least in regard a living person. We can take Mayer's and Zernike's articles as notable opinions.
IMHO, the different levels of reliability make it difficult to summarize the article in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I checked the pages of several similar organizations, and there is no mention of financial donors in the lede of any of them. ZippoHurlihee (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't responded yet; it's been a busy week. I should have time this weekend. I think the world can wait :). guanxi (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I wouldnt call either of those sources reliable. Definitely not boingboing, im not sure about Politico, but boingboing is without a doubt unreliable. Bonewah (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I did a little checking around, the Wisconsin AFP issued a statement about the matter here. They claim that the flyer is meant for elections held on the 16th, and that sending them out for the 11th elections was a mistake. Bonewah (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

tags added

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

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

Check sourcewatch

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

SourceWatch, like Wikipedia, should be used as a link source and not a standalone source. Here's a link from the New Yorker that might go farther in validating the Koch link to CSE, FreedomWorks, and AFP: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all Black Max (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Black Max
Mayer is already used, sorry. Collect (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

politically conservative

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

And if the source does not make the claim, we can not make the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Nstrauss, if you can't find a source that says that water is wet, we won't be able to say it. — goethean ॐ 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm baffled by your responses. The source says AFP is conservative. What's the difference between conservative and politically conservative? Basically what you're both saying is that we must quote all of our sources word for word and paraphrasing is not allowed. This is in direct contradiction with WP:PARAPHRASE. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The lede already has "political advocacy" and thus "politically conservative" is not only not found in the source used, it is redundant, iterative and repetitive at best. I know it is horrid that Wikipedia requires that sources make the claims that we ascribe to them, but it is "da rulez." Collect (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that's actually not da rulez. Da rulez is WP:PARAPHRASE, which says, "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words." Again, what's the difference in this context between conservative and politically conservative? ... Point taken about the redundancy. I propose that the sentence read "Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a politically conservative,[2] Washington, D.C.–based advocacy group." It seems to flow better and it makes clear what "conservative" means when you read it without the reader having to finish the whole sentence first. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent change to lede and cherry pick tag

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

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

conservative

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

I agree, which is why I restored the word. It just reads better this way; it's clearer to mention it up front, not hide it in a quote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Best to leave it the way it was. --Mollskman (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
So we agree that "conservative" should be in the lead paragraph. Should it be in the first or third sentence? Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes, opinions should be attributed. But this group self-describes as conservative. So that warrants a passing mention. See "Americans for Prosperity Conservative Leadership Summit: "Enjoy a host of other great speakers for an afternoon of information, politics and good conversation with likeminded conservatives.[4] Safehaven86 (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

See also KochPAC

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

I can assure you that there's an RS out there somewhere -- that's the only basis I had for associating the two even in my own mind at the time. I believe that the article was from a TV station and that it referred to a collaboration between the two organizations in an a particular media campaign. It certainly is elusive as you say, though, because I haven't been able to find it again.   — C M B J   14:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
And if we find such a RS we could add it. As a note, Open Secrets has all the expenditures of KochPAC available to peruse. I could see no such expenditures. This is not surprising. KochPAC is a "hard" campaign money organization. It's hard because it has to come from individual donors under modestly sized, strict campaign law limits. AFP is an advocacy organization that is not subject to these campaign limits. They raise "soft" dollars from individuals, foundations, and corporations. It would be unexpected and (frankly) stupid for KochPAC to use limited hard dollars in contributions to an organization like AFP.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-partisan?

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

Non-partisan doesn't mean non-ideological. It doesn't even mean that the groups opinions are somehow equidistant between the major parties or political groups in a country. It just means it has no connection to political parties, doesn't endorse or support parties, either doesn't endorse political candidates or its endorsements aren't exclusive to a specific party or parties. twfowler (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah right! I bet they don't exclusively endorse GOP candidates and causes. If it stomps like an elephant, has hooves and a trunk, it's gray.....then it's an elephant. "Americans for Prosperity" is definitely partisan. Just because they claim not to be doesn't make it so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.69.130 * - non sequitur note: elephants have padded feet, not hooves, although at the WWF website they call each toe/toenail unit a hoof.(talk) 08:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Typically when people hear "non partisan" they assume an entity with no ideological bias. AFP has always shown a conservative bias. And furthermore, if they are non-partisan, I ask you this: what Democratic agenda have they supported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.123.69 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

AFP and polifact

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

Sourcing

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

WSJ source and content summary added, thank you! 17:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Tea Party

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

Wait, there is a category link at the bottom of the article page (Category:Tea Party) but there isn't anything in the body of the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Funny that, huh? No mention of the tpm in the WP article on the flagship org of the tpm. WP is funny that way sometimes. Are you considering deleting the cat? Hugh (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, I don't think so. I seem to recall that this is an organization involved in the tea party. I am not sure it is the flagship but I do think it is deep in there. We should find some refs for its participtation, I think. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I was able to quickly find and add some high-quality reliable source references that made the obvious tpm/AFP relationship explicit. I was able to find them quickly by going through the edit history and looking for large, red, negative deletions. Hugh (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me, well done. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Direct quotations

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

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

Let's all take this pledge

I am vowing to follow the guideline at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars. I hope I succeed. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I looked at this for guidance: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Resolving ownership issues. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Rick Snyder resources

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

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

Sources add, thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

AFP and AFP Foundation – clarification needed

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

I think CharityNavigator and CharityWatch are basically primary source reprints, and like IMDB and other similar consolidators of such data they are not good RS. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Additional well-referenced content has been added to the "structure" and "funding" subtopics clarifying the distinction between the AFP and the AFP Foundation. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

AFP-intermediary-Cain transactions

Multiple, well-formatted, readily-available online, highly noteworthy and highly reliable references were deleted. Sources include Time, The Washington Post, and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal. The associated content is a neutral, three-sentence summary of the sources. The content concerns an episode regarding allegations of the subject of this article contributing to a presidential campaign via an intermediary, in conflict with their status as tax exempt. The content included the response of the subject of this article to the allegations. Collaborators are respectfully asked for an alternative summarization of the sources rather than paragraph blanking and the deletion of noteworthy, international reliable sources. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is disruptive. This subject is already being addressed in the discussion directly above. Your use of please and thank you is nothing but lipstick. You want to include this content, then you come up with a formulation and a basis for its inclusion that satisfies the consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources:

Proposed summarization:

AFP had financial transactions with a tax-exempt charity that allegedly made contributions to the Herman Cain presidential campaign which were not included in the Cain campaign's disclosures. Tax-exempt charities are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns, and a charity may not use intermediaries to contribute to political campaigns. AFP said the transactions were reimbursements of travel expenses, incurred before Cain launched his campaign, for Cain and a staff person to attend AFP or AFP Foundation events.

Comments? Hugh (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me as not particularly relevant and very non-neutral. None of these stories suggested AFP did anything wrong, but this presentation suggests the opposite. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Revised proposed summarization:

AFP had financial transactions with a tax-exempt charity that allegedly made contributions to the Herman Cain presidential campaign. AFP said the transactions were reimbursements of travel expenses, incurred before Cain launched his campaign, for Cain and a staff person to attend AFP or AFP Foundation events.

Comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This formulation demonstrates how tangential AFP's role in this story really was. Trivial content not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015 article size checkpoint

According to our page size tool, the article is Prose size (text only): 33 kB (5119 words) "readable prose size." This is roughly 2/3 of our page size rule of thumb of where article length begins to be a concern WP:PAGESIZE. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the only editor discussing WP:PAGESIZE is you. I could be mistaken, but my understanding is the concerns discussed above in Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Too much detail were about WP:NOT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In one of my Edit summaries I complained that the article was getting to be "too long." I guess that is a complaint about its size. It is a bit shorter now and, considering the topic, at this point it seems OK, athough I am sure some more could be taken out or tightened up. It takes more time to write short than it does to write long. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Of course comments on due weight in proportion to reliable sources are welcome, please be specific and kindly start a separate thread as an issue distinct from article size. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a blind spot for WP:NOT. I don't know why you won't acknowledge that policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your frank feedback on my understanding of policy. Here on this article talk page, may I please ask you to be more specific, in separate threads, with your article content concerns, aside from article hatting and policy citing? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I have, but you've been belittling and dismissing my concerns, as well as similar concerns by others, which makes it difficult to get anything done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge "Influence" and "Tea Party" sections?

I note the one-paragraph influence section consists solely of assessments from reliable sources of the subject's leadership role within the tea party movement. We have a principle of facts 1st, then interpretation/reaction/analysis. I think the influence section would fit well as a last paragraph in the tea party section. Comments? Hugh (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to implement this, let's see how it looks. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Block

This was a Wisconsin story. I recall it vividly. It encompassed almost a week of articles, perhaps 5 days. It involved a former employee of AFP. Former. AFP's involvement was appaerntly limited to having paid travel expenses of the former employee to meetings in DC. This is a Herman Cain article story (possibly, it may even be undue there), it is certainly WP:UNDUE here. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, as an aside, Block is famous for his Cain campaign video, possibly the worst presidential ad ever. Google it on youtube. Unbelievable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and collaboration. I've restored a paragraph blanking that included multiple reliable source references including Time magazine, The Washington Post, and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal. Please suggest an alternative summarization of these reliable sources rather than paragraph blank. Our readers may well come to this article to understand these controversial transactions. I agree in terms of word count the converage is perhaps a bit much, but a certain amount of background is necessary to understand AFP's explanation. For the record coverage of this episode pre-dates my personal involvement in editing this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I will restore the refs and edit to emphasis AFP's role and de-emphasis Block's role per your comments. Please look at it and discuss before paragraph blanking and deleting reliable sources. That no federal prison time resulted from this episode is irrelevant; coverage in major news outlets means it is due weight here. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest not. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this paragraph included to show that AFP can get scammed or rolled like other people? I really don't see the value in the inclusion here. A former employee creates charities with names curiously close to AFP, apparently siphons off major donors away from AFP, then send bills AFP for some of his travel. Is this encyclopedic? I wouldn't say so. It was essentially a one day story at the time, one that centered on Herman Cain's campaign manager Mark Block. This is entirely peripheral to AFP. Add it to the Cain article perhaps, it would fit better there. It clearly doesn't here. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me go further, this organization has been around for at least a decade. Given traditional high-level turnover rate of campaign staff there are probably (50 states x 10 years x ~5 state director turnover rate) as many as 2,500 former AFD state Exec Directors running around. Are we going to add articles on each one that gets mentioned in RS? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am deeply disheartened at your line of reasoning here, which I recognize as reductio ad absurdum. I am sad because I think you understand WP:DUE better than this. This content is not a camel's nose that will inevitably result in the ruination of the encyclopedia. If you are aware of the activities of AFP staff coverage in Time magazine or the Washington Post or other major newspapers not already in the article, please share. I am asked by policy to assume you are not baiting me into an edit war. Hugh (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Too late, you are both already in an edit war. Please stop, both of you. And Hugh, please try harder to assume good faith and to understand Capitalismojo's arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree Block is not important here, although he is as you say a colorful character for sure. Also, the charity established by a state dir of AFP while a state dir of AFP is here only by way of background. Reliable sources document charges of AFP using an intermediary to fund the Cain campaign, and AFP's explanation. This episode is difficult to explain without mentioning the alleged intermediary charity at least indirectly, and the fact that the alleged intermediary was created by an AFP state dir is part of the noteworthiness of this episode. It is not a one-day story. Yes, by the time this came to light he was no longer state dir, but he was at the time he set up the alleged intermediary, and oh, btw, he left to join Cain's campaign, not included here. The value here to our readers is that a reader, coming across one of the early articles regarding the controversy, comes to WP to get the real story, and sees AFP's explanation. When Time and WaPo and the Mil J-S cover a story our hand is more or less forced, regardless of our personal assessment of the net net impact on the world. I have reduced the weight on your concerns, including removing direct reference and wl to Block. If you can suggest an alternative summarization of the sources that manages to tell the story clearly, please do so, but paragraph and rs blanking is not an option. Hugh (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Capitalismojo that this story is of limited relevance to our AFP article. It seems to be more about Block, Prosperity USA, and Cain. There may be some AFP angle to this story that merits inclusion, but so far I haven't seen it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Block is gone. Direct reference to Block and the wikilink to Block was not included in the content revised as per your concerns, leaving an episode involving alleged contributions by the subject of this article to a presidential political campaign in conlfict with their status as a charity, an episode manifest in multiple, well-formatted, available online, reliable sources. Yet it was deleted by Capitalismojo in his 2nd revert. Kindly suggest an alternative summarization of the multiple, well-formatted, available online, reliable sources which Capitalismojo deleted. Thank you in advance for your collaboration. Hugh (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Removing Block doesn't solve the problem. I'm not aware of any summarization that would make this story sufficiently relevant to this article to merit its inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not your awareness that makes a summarization of this story relevant here, it's the coverage in multiple highly noteworthy and highly reliable international news sources. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Not everything revolves around the number of reliable sources. Please unplug your ears and listen to the feedback of your fellow editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that this material is not relevant in this article. This person was a former employee. The argument that because RS refs mention that he was a former employee that somehow makes it important in an encyclopedia article here doesn't wash. This is WP:NOT what should be included. Random trivia is unhelpful to the reader. Include this information at the Mark Block or Herman Cain articles if you think they needs additional material. Not here. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Explain the diff between AFP and the Foundation?

We need a decent explanation of the difference between these two related orgs. The current text doesn't do it. I hope somebody can comply because I can't. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but most political organizations have paired 501(c)(3) [educational charity] and 501(c)(4) [advocating lobbying] organizations. Can someone verify this and explain it better? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We do have sources, but it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to use them to explain the difference, as we don't have a single source which does so. Perhaps some of the sections under "Finance" (which are completely irrelevant to "finance") could be moved to a description, if we're careful not to have synthesis by adjacency. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is a decent summary of reliable sources on the differences between AFP and the Foundation, such as they are. Perhaps the most significant difference is the IRS filing status, which has significant implications for the allowable activities and fund-raising. We can further highlight these differences by moving the filing status up to where we have individual subsections for AFP and the AFP Foundation. I'll try and we can look at it. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft lead

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is one of the most influential conservative political advocacy groups in the United States. Founded in 2004 by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, AFP remains the Koch’s primary political operation. After the inauguration of President Barack Obama, AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force. AFP organized significant opposition to Obama administration initiatives, including helping to defeat climate change regulation, protesting the economic stimulus, opposing the Affordable Care Act and advocating its repeal, and opposing the expansion of Medicare. The organization played a key role in the achievement of the 2010 Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. AFP opposed raising the minimum wage and advocated for right to work laws and for limits on the collective bargaining rights of unions. AFP was a major producer and purchaser of political television advertising. Other important methods included mailings, canvassing, web publishing, online petitions, legislator scoring, and themed bus tours and hot air balloons. Their scope of operations, multiple simultaneous active campaigns at both state and national levels, has been compared to a political party. AFP was cited by Obama and others as a politically active non-profit lacking transparency.

Comments? More interested in coverage of the most notable aspects of the subject in the body rather than in punctuation and format at this point. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I edited the above and I agree that it should replace the lead now on the article. The proposed lead, about the same size as the one just above but in two paragraphs, would be:

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), founded in 2004, is one of the most influential conservative political-advocacy groups in the United States. Established by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch, AFP is the Kochs' primary political operation.

After the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2008, AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force. It organized significant opposition to administration initiatives, including climate-change regulation, the Affordable Care Act, an economic-stimulus package and the expansion of Medicare. It played a key role in the Republican electoral victory for the House of Representatives in 2010. It opposed raising the federal minimum wage, and it advocated for right-to-work laws and for limits on labor unions' collective-bargaining rights. AFP was a major producer and purchaser of political television advertising. It also engaged in mailings, canvassing, Internet publishing, online petitions and vote-scoring of legislators. It sponsored themed political bus tours and the floating of hot-air balloons bearing messages of advocacy. AFP's range of operations and its multiple simultaneous active campaigns at state and national levels have drawn comparison to those of a political party. AFP was cited by Obama and others as a politically active non-profit that lacks transparency. Its supporters say it is engaged in political free speech.

I see no problem in using this as the lead and working on it as the article changes over time. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. The 2-graph version is better, thanks. My only quibble is with the last few words, I might change "engaged in political free speech" to "educating voters on issues," for which we have multiple refs and a good quote. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments? Hugh (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of things I'm not crazy about, but it can be posted and then we can tinker with it more easily. One specific thing I'd say is that the last two sentences are vacuous and should be sharpened (see WP:ENEMY) or removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dr. Fleischman, I'm not crazy about it. Especially the last two sentences. I suggest not posting it til its worked out though. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. Thank you both for your recent article space edits to the lede. Please reconsider collaborating with us here on talk. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support on the draft lead. With this consensus I will add all but the last 2 sentences to article space, and I hope to hear from my colleagues on those last 2 sentences here in talk space. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I was saddened by your refusal to collaborate in talk space. In good faith, I added the draft lede minus the last two sentences with which you expressed reservations. After an hour or so in article space, you deleted two additional sentences, beyond those you expressed concern with here in talk, two sentences available above to you on the talk page for your review and comment. I did not understand content deletion to be subsumed in your definition of "tinker." I am asked by policy to assume you are not baiting for an edit war, but I find myself wondering. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course the subject of this article is notable for many significant innovations in methods, innovations copiously documented in reliable sources and in the body of the article. We could start with the use of themed bus tours, not unique but highly characteristic of the subject of this article. Then there's the hot air balloon motif, almost a trademark. The subject of this article rose to prominence in part by its early adoption of the internet, and even trained other including tea party members on the political uses of the internet. Notification to legislators of legislation included on their score card and the implication of well-funded primaring was key to their success. All of which in the body and in RS. All of which you might have objected to earlier but seem to prefer article space drama. Hugh (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course the subject of this article's well-documented highly notable dominant role in producing and paying for the airing of television political advertising belongs in the lede. Hugh (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No baiting here. I consider your comments highly combative and I respectfully ask that you knock it off and start editing in a more collaborate manner that tries to accommodate the views and approaches of your colleagues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Revised draft of last two sentences of lede

Their scope of operations, in terms of national and state as well as breadth of issues, staff size, number of donors, and budgets have drawn comparisons to those of a traditional political party. Obama and others raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency of AFP with respect to the extent of thier political activities while operating as a tax-exempt non-profit, in contrast with political action committees.

Comments? Hugh (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral and teasing (see WP:LEAD). There is nothing in this proposed language suggestive of noteworthiness beyond what would one would expect about any other high profile conservative advocacy group. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
How would you put it? Specifically what do you consider non-neutral? teasing? We are in the lede now, the issue notability, not noteworthiness; noteworthiness "weight" is the body. Here we are summarizing the body. These statements in the lede summarize material in the body. What statement would you add next to summarize the largest swath of the body that is not already summarized in the lede? Hugh (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As I already said, I would remove this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What statement would you next add to the lede to summarize the largest swath of the body that is not already summarized in the lede? Hugh (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll give it a look in detail, but my answer might end up being "no statement." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry not to hear back from you. My answer to the question, what is the most notable aspect of this subject not yet in the lede? would be a pithy one-sentence summary of the copious material in the body, a sentence which attempts to capture the dynamic tension between the extent of the subject of this article's political activity, while operating as a non-profit charity, with the transparency due a charity. I am planning to try again to add such a statement. Since you have deleted multiple attempts by your colleagues to add previous drafts, I am asking you for your co-operation in improving the lede and inviting you to please draft your own brief summarization of this content from the body of the article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been slammed off-wiki. I need to dig through those sources. I'll get to it soon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Due weight of property rights and patent reforms advocacy activities

Here is the specific article content with the least support in reliable sources:

AFP advocates for the protection of property rights and patent reform.

Supported only by two self-published sources WP:SPS on the official website of the subject of this article, no supporting secondary sources regarding advocacy activities for noteworthiness. Comments? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Hugh (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Change to "says it advocates . . . ." Then I believe we could use its website as a source. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
done, thanks Hugh (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete. "Property rights" and "patent reform" are too vague to be useful, and possibly non-neutral, and expanding the content based solely on these self-published sources would be undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I agree, I don't see how to expand these two points since I don't know of any rs describing their activities in support of them. The subject of this article has many, many essays on its website. I don't think it is due, absent noteworthy support activity. Hugh (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Caricatures

@BeenAroundAWhile: Thank you again for your collaboration and the image. May I ask the relationship between the image and the article? The AFP sponsored an "informal gathering," not strictly a debate format, and not sanctioned by the GOP, in April, 2011 in NH. Paul and Gingrich did not participate but are in the image. I think the image you added may be associated with a later debate. A few months later, the GOP sponsored a GOP-sanctioned debate in NH. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if you delete them as not relevant. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Too much credit

We seem to be adding a lot of hype to this article. AFP is a large conservative group. Is it the largest? The most important? Is it really the premier conservative group? I doubt it. Can we really give AFP the credit for the tea-party, Republican control of the Senate and House, etc.? They might like to thinks so but that ignores the hundreds or thousands of other groups, some of which have more members, more money, more history. This article is drifting into puffery. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not certain its even the most imprtant tea-party group. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken we have very reliable sourcing for these claims. (I was skeptical at first, until I reviewed the sourcing.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"Is it the largest? The most important? Is it really the premier conservative group?" The article does not make any of these claims. Please help focus on content. The article only makes claims much more carefully qualified than you, and those qualified claims are thoroughly referenced to highly reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I've reviewed the refs now too. It is apparently well supported. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I was particularly concerned with the lede statement about AFP being largest 2014 spender on ads. Given what I've read about the leadership pacs, party committees, amd union pacs I found that unlikely. Looking at the ref and material in the body it becomes clear that this figure excludes all the normal committees and is only referring to the "outside groups" spending. I think that might be a little confusing for the lede for a reader. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Thanks you both once again for your careful read of the article and the sources. If you have time and energy please do more. I learned a lot collaborating on this article. PACs and superPACS get all the attention, but a charity outspent the super PACs. I will clarify the lede with a brief in-text definition of "outside groups." Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask for support in removing the article hats and requesting a copy edit pass from WP:GOCE. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, am fine with removing the tags and would welcome a review from the Guild. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

New discussion about the lead

No one has addressed the lead issue in quite some time. So I am presenting my grievances. This lead is heavily weighted in a way that makes criticisms of the organization appear to be what is most notable. And that is just undue. The organization is most notable for its stated mission and conservative advocacy. The way its written - and I apologize if this is offensive but it describes my view - sounds like how the liberalpedia article would be written. Here is a portion in the lead that I find to be undue:

After the 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama, AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force. It organized significant opposition to Obama administration initiatives such as global warming regulation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the expansion of Medicaid and economic stimulus. It helped turn back "cap and trade," the major environmental proposal of Obama's first term. AFP advocated for limits on the collective bargaining rights of public-sector trade unions and for right-to-work laws, and it opposed raising the federal minimum wage. AFP played an active role in the achievement of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 2010 and in the Senate in 2014.

This paragraph is written in a seemingly negative tone, which hints at a POV. Did the organization oppose all Obama initiatives? Or did it support conservative policies? See how the phrasing is an issue? And this section makes it appear as though the neutral position is one where Americans for Prosperity are the bad guys. That is not neutral per Wikipedia guidelines. Especially given how large the organization is and how many activities it is involved in. Imagine if someone wrote on a Soros-funded organization in the second sentence of the lead that Soros funded parts of the Ferguson protests: Wouldnt editors be rightfully upset? DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand what DaltonCastle is saying. Although all parts of that paragraph are, I think, linked below to reliable sources, we might want to take out some of the detail. I suggest:

AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force and organized significant opposition to Obama administration legislative initiatives. It advocated for limits on collective bargaining by public-sector trade unions and in favor of right-to-work laws, and it opposed raising the federal minimum wage. AFP played an active role in the achievement of Republican majorities in Congress.

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok that does already look greatly improved. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I will leave it to you or somebody else to stick it into the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"No one has addressed the lead issue in quite some time." A week? Hugh (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"So I am presenting my grievances." Please refer specific content and to policy and guideline here on this article talk page rather than personal preferences. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"This lead is heavily weighted in a way that makes criticisms of the organization appear to be what is most notable. And that is just undue." The content you deleted from the lede included several sentences, only one of which summarized a criticism, a criticism of the transparency covered at length in the body of the article and a criticism advanced by multiple notable sources. The lede summarizes the body WP:LEDE. The content you deleted from the lede is neutral. The lede does not mention "bad guys" as you say. Please help us focus on content. Please refrain from hypotheticals on this article talk page. Please refrain from discussing other articles on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"The organization is most notable for its stated mission" The subject of this article is not notable for its mission statement. Do you have reliable sources that the subject of this article is notable for its mission statement? WP:Avoid mission statements The subject of this article has more than a decade of event-filled history. The subjects of articles do not get to write their own lede. The mission statement of the subject of this article is more than adequately summarized in the body and balanced there with a third party assessment of their mission. The mission statement of the subject of this article is not appropriate for the lede. Thank you. Hugh (talk)
Your proposed lede above deletes all mention from the lede of global warming, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the expansion of Medicaid, the economic stimulus, and "cap and trade," all topics which are covered in due weight in the body. The lede summarizes all of the body, as per policy WP:LEDE. Hugh (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Dalton, I'm not sure I agree with everything Hugh wrote above, but I don't see what you're saying about criticisms receiving undue weight. Nothing you included in the blockquote you put in your original post is even suggestive of criticism. There is nothing negative about AFP's successes and policy positions. Half the country would see these well sourced items as positives, not negatives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity/Archive_1&oldid=1080130287"