Talk:Americans for Prosperity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The lead

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

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

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

Thank you for your patience. This article will never be done but I can't see any more major restructuring or expansion. Thank you for holding off on everyone's favorite part, the lede, for a few weeks. Please feel free to take a stab at a lede. May I suggest we collaborate in situ in article space if it is just us and workshop on the talk page if there is wider interest in collaborating. I think we have a decent summary of reliable sources with some decent topic sentences in subsections which will facilitate a good lede WP:CREATELEAD. I ask that we please try to avoid citations in the lede. If anyone has a source that might help with the lede, please try to integrate it with the body first. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Great start, thanks. Let's try for a lede in Wikipedia voice. Let's see if we can agree on a great 1st sentence, 1st paragraph and great lede. Ambitious, maybe. AFP does not get to write their own lede, nor does FactCheck or anyone else, that's our job. No quotes from AFP website in lede. I asked for support from collaborators on the basic idea of no new material in the lede, so there is no need for citations in the lede. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not a new organization, it has over a decade of very eventful history. We have plenty of things the subject has done to summarize in the lede. The organization's goals, their own self-declared goals or as interpreted by another (FactCheck), are appropriate in the article, but at this late stage, not in the lede, at least not directly, but maybe indirectly by letting the facts of their history a speak WP:Let the facts speak for themselves. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's more than OK to repeat or paraphrase stuff from the body in the lede. For now I'm going to restore the "overview' section and leave the lede alone. Please copy or paraphrase content from the body to the lede rather than move content and refs from the body to lede. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not subscribe to your approach; nor do I subscribe to WP:CREATELEAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nor do I. The essay (WP:CREATELEAD), I find, was unhelpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, how do you create ledes? May I ask, can you be more specific about your issues with Wikipedia essay WP:CREATELEAD? Hugh (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The essay was quite thorough. Very thoughtful. Seems to follow WP guidelines almost perfectly. I believe Hugh should write up a lead based on its principles and post it in articlespace. If anybody objects to it, we can talk about it here and maybe improve it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Although I might suggest holding off on the lead until the rest of the article is set. Personally, I haven't been able to look at it from a distance because I have been so busy making fussy little edits to get rid of direct quotes and tighten up sentences, etc. I wouldn't mind somebody looking at the big picture to see if the piece is actually organized in a logical way. I would not accept moving anything from the body to the lead because the lead, as has been noted, should simply sum up what is said in the body. Moving info from one place to another within the article might be a good idea if anything is definitely out of order. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I subscribe to WP:LEAD, which is a Wikipedia guideline and reflects the consensus of the community, rather than WP:CREATELEAD, which reflects the thoughts of a single editor. WP:LEADCITE describes how citations may be put in the lead section. WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis describes the extent to which a lead's emphasis and content may differ from the body. A hard-and-fast rule that content may not be moved from the body to the lead is arbitrary, formalistic, contrary to WP:LEAD, and in some cases leads to a more poorly written article. In this case, we have both a lead section and a section entitled "Overview," which is bizarre and redundant in light of the fact that a lead section is an overview. (It's right there in the second and third sentences of WP:LEAD.) The contents of the "Overview" section should either be moved into the lead or deleted. Finally, from a process standpoint, I object to having Hugh write up an entirely new lead to be discussed at talk. Changes should be made incrementally in the article space to facilitate BRD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Thank you for your recent edits. Thanks for your careful read. Please make another pass at the body. I think the body is looking well. Thank you for your support on the lede. Sigh, I thought this might be straightforward, but it rarely is, is it? Silly me. There was wisdom in the suggestion of talk page drafting. I will put together a few sentences. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Thank you for your feedback. On your suggestion I have move content and refs from the overview section to where they fit better. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is one of the most influential conservative political advocacy groups in the United States. AFP was founded in 2004 by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries and 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 helped defeat climate change regulation and organized significant opposition to Obama administration initiatives including the economic stimulus and health care reform. AFP opposed the Affordable Care Act and advocated its repeal and opposed the expansion of Medicare. AFP 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 of political television advertising. Other key AFP methods included mailings, canvassing, web publishing, online petitions, legislator scoring, and themed bus tours and hot air balloons. AFP was cited by Obama and others as a politically active non-profit lacking transparency.

This seems to me like a reasonable start at summarizing the main points of the article. Probably a bit short yet. Lede sentence as per my good colleague DrFleischman. Comments? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead should be broken up into multiple paragraphs. I suggest three. Typically for political advocacy groups, the first paragraph includes a description of the organization's ideology and stated mission. The second paragraph can describe AFP's specific policy positions and accomplishments. A third paragraph can address AFP's organization and operations, including the Kochs' role, methods, and possibly transparency issues. The proposed sentence on transparency doesn't appear neutral, but that can be addressed separately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the notable aspects of the subject. The subject's own statement of its mission belongs in the article but not in the lede. This subject is not notable for its own mission statement. The subject does not get to write its own lede. The notable aspects of this organization are exactly what it has done. The subject of this article is defined by what it has done, not by what it says about itself. This organization is unique in many ways. This organization is not a think tank and the lede should not present it as one. It is a political organization that works in the streets and in elections. Its policy positions are a distant secondary to its activities. That this organization is actualizing on a coherent political philosophy is just one of several viewpoints on this organization, other viewpoints include that it is implementing opposition to Obama and another is it is implementing the Koch's agenda, and other viewpoints, and our lede should not favor one viewpoint. The Koch's role is one of the single most important aspects of the notability of the subject of this article, and belongs in the first sentence, or, failing that, in the second, as here, but certainly not in a subsequent paragraph. The founding date is best in the first sentence, but failing that certainly very early, as here, and while we're on the topic of the founding we need to mention the highly notable actors. The tension between the views of the subject of this article between grassroots vs. special interest dominants reliable sources, as does the extent of its political activities with respect to its operation as a non-for-profit that does not disclose its contributors; of course this needs to be covered in the lede. Hugh (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm evidently not going to get through to you. Just post your lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a draft of a lead as described by User:DrFleischman, either on this Talk page maybe first posted in Articlespace as WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Or a new one to be proposed by User:HughD. Or – wait a minute - was that your proposed lead in the rather thick indented paragraph above, Hugh? If so, I invite you to trim out the repetitions (AFP, for example) by using pronouns and move it to a new section below, where it would stand out without all the discussion we had just above. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see revised draft, below. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Just read through this conversation about the lead and wanted to contribute. Per BeenAroundAWhile's request I have taken a look at the lead and also feel that it does not "hit all the bases." A lead is supposed to be a "summary of an article's most important aspects," per WP:LEAD. I don't feel that this lead does this successfully, as it goes into too much detail and discusses things that do not represent the "majority view" in a concise manner. According to WP:UNDUE, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." This lead gives undue weight to a minority perspective. I have noticed that part of the lead has been previously deleted for this exact reason. It would be interesting to see what other users' opinions are on this matter? Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Per BeenAroundAWhile's request" May I ask what form that request took? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It was not in any formal matter, however they simply stated above "I invite interested editors to take a look at the article." Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletions May 2015

@HughD: Hi! Thank you for being patient. I did not mean to be dismissive earlier, I wanted to convey it would be some time until I got around to this. If that was not clear I do apologize. The information I have since removed I believe was either non-notable, irrelevant, or using primary sources. Yes, I understand that there are times when primary sources can be used for non-controversial details. But that particular piece seemed completely unnecessary; puffery. Also, there were several redundancies that were removed. Also, the opinion piece I removed from the Washington Post was because it was not anything about AFP. It was the newspapers opinion about generic campaign finances, not a hard fact about the organization.

Also, just a heads up, I am going to fall asleep soon so I will be unable to continue any discussion until the morning. Hope this cleared some of it up. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before deleting content and reliable source references. The "opinion piece" you deleted was identified in-text as a Washington Post editorial. The title of the editorial you deleted the reference to was "Americans for Prosperity's big-bucks attack ads." Of course it is very clear the quote is about the subject of this article. The opinion of the Washington Post editoral board is a noteworthy opinion, particularly on matters of transparency. Many editors and administrators watch this page and several of your fellow editors have gone over the content and references on this page and verified content and passed on due weight and you do not seem to respect that. You are welcome to participate in these discussions. You deleted the subject of this article's report of its own staff size. Stating an approximate staff size in an article on an organization is not "puffery," it is useful to readers in judging the scale of the operation, even if it is sourced to the subject. Your edits are not improvements. Hugh (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please gain consensus on this talk page with your fellow editors before deleting content and reliable source references from this article. May I say again, I hope you will hear, your edits, each and every one of them, are uniformly not improvements to the article. Please refrain from edit warring. Hugh (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You deleted a key clause from the paraphrase of Fang that changes the meaning of content. Did you read the source? What Fang said was that the Obama campaign erred in criticizing the subject of this article instead of the Kochs directly. What you left was Fang said the Obama campaign erred in criticizing the subject of this article. That is not the same thing. Your deletion changed the meaning significantly. Your deletion is not helpful to our readers. The content is less clear after your deletion. Hugh (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Then the entire sentence should be deleted. The article is not about the Kochs and Fang's political opposition to them. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Twice now in the last few hours you have deleted most of the content summarizing reliable sources regarding the Koch funding of the subject of this article. If you were more familiar with reliable sources on the subject of this article, of course you would recognize that the Koch funding of the subject of this article is perhaps the single most notable aspect of the subject of this article. If a reliable source mentions the subject of this article at all, it is almost certain to also mention the Koch funding. If anything, the coverage of the Koch funding of the subject of this article in this article is deficient with respect to coverage in reliable sources. The coverage of Koch funding in this article is reduced, a result of consensus among collaborating editors. Also, you seem oblivious to the distinction the article content made between initial seed funding and ongoing funding, before you hacked it out. The Kochs are both according to RS. Again, your edits are not an improvement. Hugh (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Koch funding of the subject of the article is the most notable subject for the article? First of all, that does not seem right. Thats a POV. And I did not remove all mention. The first sentence I removed was repetitive. One sentence already mentioned Koch foundations, the one I removed just reiterated it. The sentence from the Washington post about percentage was also repetitive. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"One sentence already mentioned Koch foundations" Have you decided that you cannot keep "AFP rec'd funding from the Kochs" out, and if you can't you are bound and determined to make sue that's ALL this article says? Because by policy, coverage in our article is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Your contributions might be more beneficial rather than harmful if you were to call off your crusade and invest the time to become more familiar with the reliable sources on the subject of this article, as some of your colleagues have done. And there is a LOT of RS on AFP & the Kochs. You have a very generous idea of repetitive, apparently any sentence that involves AFP and Koch is a repetition of every other sentence about AFP and the Kochs. Hugh (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your contribution to this article is to delete content related to the Koch funding of the subject of this article, perhaps the single most notable aspect of the subject of this article as reflected in the vast reliable sources. Your content deletion is not an improvement. Why do you want to reduce the article's coverage of the most notable aspect of the subject, coverage already grossly short of due? Hugh (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Three times now in the last few hours you have deleted a brief quote from a Washington Post editorial, first with an edit summary of "POV, not notable," next you tried "undue, & irrelevant," and most recently you tried "original research, undue." The POV is addressed by in-text attribution as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Notability is not a criteria for article content. The quote is highly relevant, in fact it serves as a topic sentence for paragraph about reaction to the lack of transparency of the subject of this article. The quote is highly relevant in showing that it is not just Obama or Democrats who have criticized the transparency of the subject of this article. The paragraph is followed by a much longer paragraph in which not one but several distinct explanations the subject of this article has offered for its non-disclosure are collected and described. The quote provides important balance to the clearly stated position of the subject of this article on its own transparency. If you were more familiar with the reliable sources on the subject of this article, of course you would realize that the lack of transparency is one of the most notable aspects of the subject of this article. If a reliable source mentions the subject of this article, more likely then not it will mention that they do not disclose their funders. If you are not sure of this, note that we have a clause in the article, "AFP does not disclose its funders," in short order an editor could hang several dozen reliable source references to that clause, references drawn only from those already in the article, with no additional research. But that would not improve the article. Again, your edit is not an improvement. The quote is attractive for our encyclopedia as a concise statement of the highly significant POV that the public would benefit from knowing more about the funding. If anything, the coverage in this article of the criticisms of the subject of this article is deficient with respect to the vast coverage in reliable sources. The quote is not OR. If you believe this content is original research, please try defending your position on this talk page. Hugh (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this one. Keeping that portion in makes the rest of it a POV push. We are not here to push the opinion that an organization should disclose it donors. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Another of the most notable aspect of the subject of this article is the dimension of transparency/confidentiality/accountability, another topic grossly underrepresent as compared to vast reliable sources. We are not pushing anything, we are asked to fairly summarizing reliable sources. We are asked to include all significant views. The view of the editorial board on the operation of this org is a significant view. You could do worse than the WaPo quote. If you succeed in deleting this quote you will not like any better what we have to add to repalce it to provide balance to the much longer succeeding paragraph in which AFP case is presented. Again, your content deletion is not an improvement. Please reply, why do you want to reduce the article's coverage of the most notable aspect of the subject, coverage already grossly short of due? Hugh (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The quote in question does not improve the page.The general controversy is already mentioned, but adding this quote alters the entire section. Without it the section, roughly summarized, says "AFP was questioned in regards to its transparency and activities". With the quote that becomes "AFP was questioned in regards to its transparency and activities. The Washington Post says not disclosing is wrong". Its an irrelevant note that could be construed as a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonCastle (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 May 2015‎

Pleas sign your talk apge comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I don't think editors have to abide by anybody's wish to "Please gain consensus before deleting content and reliable source references." Frankly, I prefer WP:BRD as a working principle for creating a viable WP page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Hugh! Been at a barbecue! Just caught up on all this. I have addressed each item underneath the paragraph. Hope this clears up the changes. I will address more in the near future. For the most part, I do believe my edits improve the page since it removes any perceived POV and also non-notable, irrelevant information. Hope this all makes sense and is well received. And in the funding section in particular, dont some of those sentences seem repetitive? How many different ways can we say its been funded by the Kochs? DaltonCastle (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Lee Fang

In the "Transparency" section of this article, a quote is used addressing Lee Fang and his recent publication. This information does not come from a “neutral” source nor does it have a “neutral point of view.” I understand that the source is reliable, but the entirety of this Wikipedia article does not represent all views, therefore making it biased. Lee Fang writes specifically for left-leaning news websites such as The Progressive and The Nation. The Progressive has been described as an “American monthly magazine of politics, culture and progressivism with a pronounced liberal perspective.” Lee Fang’s book, titled with a highly left-leaning name, is a book bashing the conservative movement and the right, with specific chapters slandering the AFP.

As previously stated, these may be reliable sources and may be relevant, but WP:NPOV states that all points of view must be proportionately represented. Coming directly from the Wiki policy… “critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources, and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias.” Therefore, this section of information will be deleted as it is violating NPOV. If you want to find other reliable sources with the opposing point of view, then feel free.

In addition, this also violates WP:UNDUE. Neutrality of the article requires that it represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Should information from this author be used? Is this quote notable? Coming from a very biased book, is having information from an author like this applicable and representative of all viewpoints? Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 03:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this material should be deleted but I come at it from a slightly different angle. This opinion is simply not very notable or relevant for this article. Lee Feng is a fairly high-profile journalist but the opinion is much more relevant to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 and United States presidential election, 2012 than it is about AFP. And its relevance to AFP's transparency (or lack thereof) is fleeting at best. In addition it's insider baseball, and there's no RS-based indicia of reliability. This is not an example of a third-party newspaper publishing Feng's opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I, too, agree that this material is not suitable for this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I shortened the "Events" section. The details about the two events can be placed in the articles about the events, not here in an article about the organization that sponsored them. And it didn't seem to me that we needed subheaders for this section. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"The details about the two events can be placed in the articles about the events" Thank you for your edits. I agree the two events probably did not justify their own, one-paragraph, few sentence subsections. The two events do not have their own articles. It is a normal and natural process that related articles split off of other articles as content accumulates. This article is a long way away from the point at which splits for article size are necessary. Meanwhile, it is inappropriate to delete relevant content from this article justified by a judgement that the content would be better in a different article that does not exist, and your deletions actually frustrate the possibility of the two events achieving independent notability. You are more than welcome to begin articles on the Defending the Dream Summit and RightsOnline, and then embrace summary style here. Even then, a certain level of coverage of those two topics will always be appropriate in this article. Thank you again for your continued collaboration. Hugh (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, collaborators are reminded, as you probably already know, "Americans for Prosperity" is the lowest-level, most detailed article on its subject. Currently, it is not the parent article of any sub-articles. And at a prose size of 30 kB "readable prose size" this article is well below the point at which splits are generally considered WP:AVOIDSPLIT. When we delete detailed content from this article, we may be deleting it from the encyclopedia if there is nowhere else for it to go. "Too detailed here" is an editorial position we are more familiar with in discussing the pros & cons between a parent article and a sub-article WP:SUMMARY, rather than between our encyclopedia and noteworthy reliable sources. WP:DETAIL reminds us "some readers need a lot of details. " May I respectfully suggest our discussion on content issues be framed within our due/undue weight policy. Specific comments on the due weight of a specific item of content are of course welcome in a separate thread. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How does the WP:NOT policy fit into your framework? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I'm happy to compare and contrast my understanding of policy with yours, but I think my talk page might be a more appropriate venue for that. Again, may I ask, here on this article talk page, if you have specific concerns about specific content in this article, please start a separate thread. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask for you to compare and contrast anyone's understanding of policy. I asked how WP:NOT fits into your own comment immediately above, in this very discussion, styled in response to other editors' position of "too detailed here." Given that most of the "too detailed here" complaints on this talk page are based on WP:NOT, a discussion of that policy seems... not only appropriate but necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:FOC WP:TPYES Kindly start a separate thread, identifying specific content in this article of concern, and specifically explain how in your view it fails to conform with WP:NOT. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

How does WP:FOC not apply to this comment then? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy our always stimulating comparison of notes on our mutual understanding of policy and guideline, I must express again that I really tend to think the best use of this talk page is discussion of specific article content of specific concern. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I will state some of my concerns with "detail" in he article.

1. First there is the addition of the line about API "largest US trade association in the oil and gas industry" This is unref'd, unsourced and entirely uneccessary in that API is wiki-linked.
2. Second we include State Farm Insurance as a founder of AFP (I've now corrected that to the AFP Foundation, per ref). This is accurate as far as it goes but is either too much or too little information. That is to say the ref'd article lists a dozen founding donors (to the foundation) and we only identify one, and not the largest or the amounts.
3. Third we identify Reynolds as a "major" corporate donor (which is ref'd), but then include additional information later in the section stating it was not a major donor and only gave small amounts (which is also ref'd). The ref for "major" gives no contribution amount, just the glancing "major" designation. The other ref says $50,000 and characterizes it as "just a fraction" of the AFP's $33 million expended that year.
4. Then there is an entire large paragraph not about funding but about issue advocacy tax policy and proposed changes to the policy which I'm not sure belongs in a "funding section". It should probably be in its own section.

These are my initial thoughts. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

4 Done. Great suggestion, thanks! Hugh (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

1 Thank you for the careful read and the suggestion. We are asked to provide a few brief words of definition on the first mention of a new term under WP:LINKSTYLE. Our readers should not have to click on a link to understand the meaning of a sentence. The American Petroleum Institute is not a household word in America let alone the rest of world. Thanks again for your time and for checking verification. Please do the rest of the article besides funding. Hugh (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

3 Done. Major is gone. We will err on the side of caution perhaps. Thank you again for your careful read of the article and sources. Please keep going. Hugh (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

2 Good catch, thanks. I added three more smaller donors mention along with State Farm that are in both the refs. The same refs mention other donors but if I read the refs correct the donors are from the CSE era. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You inspired another sweep through the funding section. I've re-read the refs and checked ver and looked for extraneous refs. I think we are in good shape with respect to verifiability and due weight. I resisted but this section reads much better without a dollar amount for each and every donation. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerned editors are respectfully requested to express their concerns regarding due weight of specific article content on this talk page, in a new section, with reference to specific policy or guideline. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wisconsin collective bargaining" section too detailed?

I am reverting HughD's removal of the section-level {{overly detailed}} tag on the "Wisconsin collective bargaining" section as I don't think the removal was justified as the tag was added just two days ago, and Hugh didn't ping the tagger BeenAroundAWhile or start a discussion on it. In the spirit of consensus building, I invite the two of you (and others) to discuss the matter and seek common ground. On the merits, my rough take is that this section merits some trimming and consolidation with the "Michigan right-to-work" section into a single section on labor law. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither did the tagger start a discussion. Hugh (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Labor law section implemented, looks good, thanks for the suggestion. Some content and refs from "Wisconsin collective bargaining" relocated. Hugh (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

one of the most influential

I have been reverted, but I want to know, if this peacock phrasing belongs in the lead? According to how many sources? I argue that this opinion does not belong in the lead of the article. Sure, it is sourced in the body of the article, but to give it undue weight in the lead IMHO is not keep with established guidelines and policies.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

1. "Americans for Prosperity". FactCheck.org. October 10, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2015. emerged as one of the most influential conservative issue advocacy groups on the national and state political scene Bykowicz, Julie (February 17, 2015). "Scott Walker Is King of Kochworld". Bloomberg News. Retrieved April 20, 2015. emerged as one of the most influential conservative issue advocacy groups on the national and state political scene
2. Weigel, David (March 1, 2012). "Behind the Cato-Koch Kerfuffle". Slate. Retrieved March 24, 2015. one of the most powerful conservative organizations in electoral politics
3. Bump, Philip (June 19, 2014). "Americans For Prosperity may be America's third-biggest political party". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 22, 2015. the third-largest political party in the United States.
4. more available if you need it

"AFD is a conservative advocacy group," the reverted lede, is a gross understatement. The current lede says "one of." It is not WP:PEACOCK. As WP:PEACOCK explains, plainly summarizing verifiable information is not peacock. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So what if the Koch brothers are connected to the subject of the article. At least the "third-largest" claim can be quoted directly to a Washington Post blogger; however, "one of the most influential" is an opinion, not a fact based statement.

I can quote that it is the opinion of some journalist or blogger that X or Y individual is the "worst president in history", that doesn't mean it should be in the lead sentence of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement in talk space. "So what if the Koch brothers are connected to the subject of the article." The lede does not claim that the subject is "one of the most influential" because of the Kochs. Are you moving on to the 2nd sentence of the lede? A new talk page section might be best for that discussion as you have titled this section "one of the most influential." Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree there is no general consensus in reliable sources on the worst president. I agree "worst" is highly subjective, but evaluations of influence are less so. If enough reliable sources report the same idea, we can include content derived from them in the body of a Wikipedia article and summarize across them in the lede. Here in addition to multiple explicit stmts of "one of the most" in rs, we have ample rs regarding the objective record of accomplishment and the scope of operations along multiple dimensions including geographic, membership, staff, advertising spending, and range of issues. And may I again please point out the "one of" in the current lede which seems like a more than adequate appropriate qualifier for our encyclopedia, no one is claiming AFP is the. ok? Hugh (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, one of the essential functions of the lead section is to explain why the subject is notable. In this case, AFP isn't just notable because it's a conservative group, it's notable because it's one of the most influential conservative groups in the country. This isn't peacock, it's reliably sourced fact. Yes, eyebrow-raising claims require very solid sources, and that's exactly what we have here. Hugh unintentionally omitted

• "Americans for Prosperity". FactCheck.org. October 10, 2011.

FackCheck.org is one of the most reliable sources out there. Add it on top of WaPo, Bloomberg, and Slate, and I have no problem at all with including this content in our opening sentence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The content gives undue weight to the opinion of numerous sources, "most influential" is a value judgement, not a fact statement. If it is to be included, it should be an attributed opinion. IMHO attributed opinions need not be in the first sentence of the lead paragraph. The subject is notable because it meets WP:GNG & WP:ORG, not because some source writers opinions are that the subject is "most influential".

The lead sentence defines scope the scope of this article is an organization by the name Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group.

But I guess I won't convince other editors of this, and this article can devolve into NPOV land. G'day--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just back from Michael Jordan, who is according to WP "an American former professional basketball player." Gulp. Sorry, the edit deleted an important aspect of the subject's notability from the lede in deleting it from the lede sentence. Of course the lede sentence of the article lede is highly proscribed, thanks for the reminder. I will restore the edit and try an accommodation and let's look at it. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the change. "Most influential" is neither an opinion nor a value judgment. It is the type of fact-based assessment that news journalists make every day, and that we rely upon in all of our politics articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, you convinced me. You had a good idea about the lede sentence: scope, thanks. Please read on. Hugh (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by HughD

I just wanted everyone to be informed of this incident. I did not want to do this but this user is behaving rather hostile at the moment. He and I have been in a dispute over a particular piece of content. He added an edit-war warning on my talk page, I did the same to his. He reported me to the administrators noticeboard for edit wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DaltonCastle_reported_by_User:HughD_.28Result:_.29). Then on his page removed any warnings about edit-warring. I promptly added it back because he is a part of this dispute just as much as I am. He continued to remove this information and then claimed on the noticeboard that I was "retaliating" against him:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664516658&oldid=664496851
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664516785&oldid=664516658
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664521991&oldid=664521571

I then posted a new section on his talk page to ask him to please refrain from this activity until the matter is resolved. He promptly removed this from his page.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664610181&oldid=664609986

I just want to make this known because I fear this user hopes I am sanctioned for edit-warring without himself getting into trouble. Just want to make sure this is well-known and not forgotten. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith with this editor.DaltonCastle (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DaltonCastle, many of my edits have been reverted as well by this same user and I also posted on his talk page. Looks like we are in the same boat. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on article content in our comments here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts

I removed two lines that are in direct conflict with quotes from other sources, including the Mayer source also used in the section in question:

In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.” [emphasis mine]

Which version takes precedent? This is, after all, a BLP issue and we should be careful about how we're presenting this. Better to show facts than to report opinions, even if they come from respectable places, no? In what specific ways is this organization being used as the Koch brothers' "primary"/"flagship" political advocacy group? From what I can tell, this conclusion drawn by certain commentators is based on spurious connections which - while certainly plausible - are far from well-established. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither takes precedent. We are asked to summarize all views. This quote is a good contribution, thanks. Hugh (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources (Politico, NY Magazine, Slate, Mother Jones) take precedent. The rule that we must summarize all views applies only to conflicting reliable sources. Statements by the Kochs and AFP spokespeople are not reliable as they have not been fact-checked and are unduly self-serving. It seems noteworthy that the Kochs and AFP have said that they're independent of each other. But this view should not be included unless it is made clear that it is false. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added an additional ref to this quote from a month earlier, might be Mayer's source, might be the same Koch Industries press release going to two outlets. Hugh (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Although two refs report the Koch Industries denial of involvement, we are accurate in our assessment that no reliable source takes up this denial in their editorial voice, and no reliable source defends the claim that the subject of this article is independent of the Koch brothers. Would you support not including this denial from Koch Industries? It is verifiable as a stmt from Koch Industries. I'm comfortable with trusting our readers to understand that the Kochs and Koch Industries are not the same thing. You believe it does not have weight and is self-serving? Thanks for your comments. Hugh (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that both the Kochs and AFP have both asserted that AFP acts independently of the Kochs, but throwing in an additional assertion by Koch Industries seems like overkill to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In direct response to AdventurousSquirrel's concerns, I agree that BLP is implicated, but the sources being cited here (Politico, NY Magazine, Slate, Mother Jones) are very reliable and self-reinforcing. These are not opinions, they are summaries of facts that have been researched by professional journalists and fact-checked by professional editors at reputable organizations. There is no BLP basis for omitting them. That said, I think the way they are presented is too detailed and therefore non-neutral in violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. In this context, "primary" and "flagship" are synonyms, so all of the sources can be collapsed into a single short sentence. And attribution is unnecessary because the sources are reliable and uncontradicted. All we need is a single sentence saying that AFP is the Kochs' primary political operation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, content merged, thank you for the suggestion! Hugh (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks better, thanks for the discussion. I still find it troubling, however, that it isn't demonstrated anywhere how, in what ways, specifically, AFP serves as "the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group". As this is the case, I think the sources of the information you mention may be of interest to readers of this page for various reasons: NY Mag ("New Journalism" magazine, a "literary style...emphasizing 'truth' over 'facts,'"), Slate ("contrarian"), and MoJo (documented "left-leaning" bias). Frankly, I've not seen anyone present any actual evidence supporting this claim. To take the Mayer source as an example, as her major refutation of the quote posted above, she brings up statements from a person named Peggy Venable who "worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994"...if you think that's something, you should compare and contrast the rosters of Wall Street execs and regulatory agencies. Ambitious and successful people, it turns out, often seem to find themselves in many different but related roles in different organizations. I can't say what the case is here, but the presented sources don't do much to establish the existence of a strong connection, or certainly not a controller-controllee-type relationship between the Kochs and the group, so to flatly call the Koch rep's claim "false" seems unfair. Based on what we have now, I would say that the RSs have indirectly implied it is false through their unelaborated statements. But certainly all these RSs obtained this description from elsewhere? What was the basis of that initial source's claim? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what evidence or other basis they had for drawing this conclusion. Whatever evidence they had was reviewed by professional journalists and editors at reputable media outlets. These outlets are all well established as reliable, despite any political bias some of them might have. This is the essence of our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your collaboration. Last week, we added a quote from the Mayer article from a Koch Industries spokesperson denying that Koch Industries directs the activities of the subject of this article (the 1st part of the excerpt from Mayer above). Today I see this quote has been removed and replaced with a quote from a Koch Industries spokesperson denying that Koch Industries or the Koch brothers financially supports "tea parties" (the 2nd part of the excerpt above). Respectfully, I do not see how this edit is an improvement to this article. The latter quote makes no mention of the subject of this article. Koch Industries, the Tea Party Movement, and Political activities of the Koch brothers all have their own articles, any of which would be a better place for the latter quote. Let's relocate this latter quote to Koch Industries, the Tea Party Movement, and Political activities of the Koch brothers and here restore the denial regarding the subject of this article. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I've added the Koch Industries denial of Koch involvement in tea parties to Tea Party Movement and Political activities of the Koch brothers. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for all of us . . .

This barnstar salutes all of us working on this page who are able to do so without completely losing our cool! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail (again)

There is entirely too much reinserted detail about tax laws regarding nonprofits, etc. Recent additions are once again pumping up the article with basically irrelevant information. The piece is again becoming one-sided simply by the large massing of adversely critical information, even if is reliably sourced. I believe we need more editors to look at this piece. I will be posting announcements at WP:WikiProject_Conservatism and WP:WikiProject Politics/Money and politics task force. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"etc." This is not helpful. On this article talk page please help us focus on content by kindly being very specific about any content with which you may have concerns. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"becoming" On this article talk page please help us focus on current content by kindly refraining from commenting what you believe to be the future of the article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please reference specific policy and guideline in your talk page coments. This article is currently Prose size (text only): 35 kB (5488 words) "readable prose size" well below our guideline for when article size becomes a concern. Thank you for your comments. Hugh (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"tax laws regarding nonprofits" One of the most notable aspects of the subject of this article, as manifest in voluminous reliable sources, is the extent of its political activities while operating with the many benefits of a tax-exempt non-profit, including deductibility of contributions and lack of disclosure requirements. We are required to provide sufficient detail such that our article is clear. The subject of every sentence in an article need not be the subject of the article. Of course in this article we are required to provide a brief summary of the context of this notable aspect of this subject. Hugh (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"the large massing of adversely critical information" There is no "large massing of adversely critical information" in this article. This article is neutral and balanced in its coverage. Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"even if is reliably sourced" Coverage in this article is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Everything in this article is reliably sourced; most content has multiple reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that BeenAroundAWhile could be more specific. I also think that Hugh could be more open to feedback. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

On this article talk page please help us focus on content by kindly refraining from personal comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not personal. You could be more open to BeenAroundAWhile's feedback in this particular discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I too agree that this article contains information that is simply not relevant, as well as specific details that do not apply. BeenAroundAWhile, perhaps you could point out some places in the article where you see a problem of relevancy? Then other users can take a look at it as well. (I think reaching out to WikiProject pages is a good idea too.) Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

On this article talk page please help us focus on content by kindly being very specific about any content with which you may have concerns. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This article was developed collaboratively, please see the talk above and the archive. This article is on many watch lists. For all the expressed concern it's odd that no one seems to be able to identify one specific instance of content of concern and the specific relevant policy or guideline. Please understand our policy on canvassing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@HughD by your own admission, this page, as all pages on Wikipedia, is created through collaboration. I therefore ask that you please avoid posturing as holding authority to override every edit on this page. There are issues on the page and, while we thank you for your efforts, you cannot be the sole editor involved. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to DaltonCastle's comment, we are focusing on content here despite several allegations -- that is the whole point of this talk page. We are concerned with the content of the article, therefore are trying to discuss our opinions about it. Yes, there may be a few side discussions here and there, but overall there is a common goal. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 18:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Funding

There seems to be an undue amount of attention on this page regarding funding/tax issues. When you look at other articles regarding advocacy groups, there is nowhere near this much attention spent on this issue (e.g. Center for American Progress). While listing the folks who fund this group is pertinent, other than merely listing them (as is done in other articles), appears to be not recognizing WP:UNDUE, and further appears to be the bugaboo of particular editors. Why are the Koch brothers even in the lead of this article? Other than for purely NPOV partisan reasons? Onel5969 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Weight in Wikipedia articles is relative to reliable sources, not to other articles in Wikipedia in a category. Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Why are the Koch brothers even in the lead of this article?" Because the Koch brothers are in the body, and the lede summarizes the body. Hugh (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. You can use other articles of similar subjects as examples of what to do and what not to do. Especially when edits create an NPOV issue. This article is about the organization, not the Koch brothers. Mentioning that they are part of the group which funded/funds the organization is appropriate, going on at length about them gives the appearance that an editor (and through that editor, the Wikipedia organization) has an axe to grind with this advocacy group and the Koch brothers. Your second argument is a strawman argument: since we include an NPOV issue in the body of the article, we must make the article even more NPOV by including it in the lead. Why don't we wait for a few more editors to weigh in, so consensus can be reached. Onel5969 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. So much undue weight towards Koch involvement hints at potential WP:COATRACKING. The article is not about the Kochs, its about AFP. Therefore a mention of Koch funding would be appropriate but certainly not how much currently stands. This is one of many issues on the page as it stands. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we get some more opinions on this? Currently only three editors giving opinions. Stands 2 to 1 for trimming. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not voting. It might help you get feedback were you focus on content and identify a very specific item of current content which you believe is non-conformant with our due weight policies, rather than whipping up support for a campaign of "trimming." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's why I haven't done anything yet, would like some more folks to chime in. Onel5969 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the copious, highly detailed information on funding is leading to WP:NPOV problems via WP:UNDUE. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Here on this article talk page please help us all focus on content by identify a very specific item of current content which you believe is inadequately supported by reliable sources. Please help us focus on current article content and kindly refrain from speculating about what you are worried the article might become. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"We're not voting". So Hugh, you actually believe you have authority over the page to override any community consensus? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on article content here on this article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Everybody's focused here, except for you, HughD - your incessant posting of this statement only continues to display your lack of consensus building, and your WP:OWN, and numerous other violations. Onel5969 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)