Talk:Americans for Prosperity/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

NPOV issue

Folks - I've been going over the article section by section for the last week. I'm going to do a major re-write, section by section. I've removed most of what the consensus has seen as NPOV issues with the article. In addition, I've also removed several citations as per WP:CITEKILL. Any unbalance in the article I've attempted to remedy by adding opposing viewpoints, if I could find a cite, or if it was included in the existing citation but simply left out of the article. But if it was simply biased, or was WP:UNDUE, I removed it. I'm definitely open to any legitimate suggestions, and am not adverse to putting changes back with which those who have reached consensus. I look forward to your thoughts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Content blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections and Koch-related content

Your recent edits include section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, as well as content blanking of content summarizing the relationship between the subject of the article and the Koch brothers, which was not consolidated into its own section. Your content blanking included dozens of reliable sources for which you offered no alternative summarization. Your content blanking was not discussed. As you were reminded above, we are asked to discuss major changes if we anticipate they might be controversial. Your content blanking included content which was work-shopped collaboratively over the last four months by your fellow editors, see above. Your content blanking is blatantly pointed and non-conformant with WP:DUE. Your content blanking is squarely in the areas of the notability of the subject of this article, including the relationship of the subject of this article to the Koch brothers, the issue of the scope operations of the subject of this article with respect to its chosen non-profit, tax-exempt filing status, and the substantial investigative journalism regarding its funding. Your content blanking targets content summarizing the most prevalent coverage in reliable sources. Your content blanking is a serious embarrassment to our project as it leaves our article in a state grossly disproportionate to reliable sources. For example, you reduced all mention of the Kochs to the mere fact that one of the Kochs chairs the board of directors, a fact immediately obvious in commonly available public records such as is available at GuideStar and others. Your content blanking suggests a profound misunderstanding of WP:DUE. Mistaking WP:DUE as requiring a balance of content considered "flattering" vs. "unflattering" is a misconception not normally associated with experienced Wikipedians. Neutrality is non-negotiable. Neutrality is not trumped by consensus. Kindly self-revert your recent content blanking. Hugh (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not content blanking, HughD... bringing it inline with the consensus on the talk page. You should try adhering to consensus at some point, it might be a refreshing change for you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide links to the talk page consensus on blanking the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, reducing the coverage of the Kochs relationship to the chairmanship, and ignoring the associated reliable sources. Also, consensus may not be used to override our neutrality pillar, please see. Your content blanking is undiscussed and unwarranted. Kindly self-revert your recent content blanking. Thank you in advance for your commitment to our pillars. Hugh (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

HughD, please understand that simply because you don't agree with the consensus does not mean it does not exist. It is here for you on the talk page. I don't need to provide you with anything. You need to start listening to the consensus. And you need to better understand neutrality (since you seem incapable of it) before you start making absurd statements like that above. Regardless, you seem unable to work with other editors, so I am done with you. This will be my last direct communication with you, since all discussion with you is obviously wasted, as evidenced by your continued disruptive behavior, which has resulted in multiple blocks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide links to the talk page consensus on your blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, on your major reduction in the coverage of the Koch relationship, and on your deletion of dozens of reliable sources. Again, kindly self-revert your content blanking and restore the reliable sources you deleted. Thank you in advance for your commitment to proportionality to reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, Hugh:

• 4 editors agree the article has too much detail which is leading to WP:NPOV issues. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [1]

• 2 editors agree that recent deletions to the article improved its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [2]

• 3 editors agree that your recent additions of Lee Fang-related material should be deleted. [3]

• 2 editors agree that you're engaged in unconstructive edit warring on this article. [4]

• 3 editors agree the article is still suffering from neutrality issues due to too much detail. One editor (you) disagrees. [5]

• 3 editors agree the funding section is non-neutral and undue. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [6]

• 2 editors agree that your use of elucidate tags and your interpretation of WP:LINKSTYLE are unhelpful. 1 editor (you) disgrees. [7]

• 5 editors disagree with your proposed changes to the lede. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [8]

• 4 editors disagree with you regarding neutrality of article's content on Koch Industries. 2 editors (you, and someone you found at a noticeboard) disagree. [9]

• 4 editors disagree with your addition of wiki-project templates and ratings to the article's talk page. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [10]

• 3 editors believe neutrality of funding section is still an issue. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [11]

• 2 editors agree on an addition to the lede to improve its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [12]

• 3 editors agree a recent addition of yours was non-neutral. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [13]

• 4 editors agree a recent change to the lede improves its neutrality. 1 editor (you) disagrees. [14]

Do you see a pattern here? In every single instance of recent disputes and discussions on this talk page, you have not been on the side of the WP:CONSENSUS. There's also an emerging consensus visible not on the talk page but in the article's edit history. Many editors have reverted you. Many editors have brought up concerns about due weight and neutrality in their edit summaries. It really seems like you are not hearing your fellow collaborators. You've resorted to edit warring and you've been blocked multiple times for it. Despite this, I don't see you coming to the table with an attitude of humility and self-reflection. If you continue on this path, the community may ban you from articles related to American politics or they may sanction you in some other way. It's up to you if you want to avoid that. The fact that when you were recently blocked and a majority of your recent edits were reverted with no one disputing the reversions shows that your edits did not have WP:CONSENSUS on their side. You are the only editor fighting for the content you've added. Think about that. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And yet it is HughD who is currently complaining about me reverting his attempt to re-add the Labour project. If it wasn't such a waste of time, it might be humorous.Onel5969 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Onel5969 for your recent contributions to the article. The entirety of the article seems ten times more neutral than it did before. As for WP:CONSENSUS -- I think that Champaign Supernova makes a very valid point. While a fellow user was recently blocked for a few days, there were no problems with edits AND multiple edits were reverted with ease, therefore proving the validity of our consensus argument. I hope that we can continue these kinds of edits and discussions without any problems in the near future, as the opposite has proved to be quite inefficient and tiresome. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~}

Thank you for your talk page comment. With all humility, may I ask, could you please expand further on your assessment that the article is ten times more neutral than before. Please explain further. With all humility, may I ask, in what ways is it more neutral? Thank you in advance for your reply to my humble questions. Hugh (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It is simply in my opinion that the article seems more neutral. However, I think that the edits of Onel5969 in regards to the "Funding" and "Transparency" sections specifically addressed the problem of wp:undue that we have been dealing with in the past few weeks. The sections were simply non-neutral, therefore the elimination of them has increased the neutrality of the article in my eyes. I hope that answers your humble question. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your talk page engagement in which a specific item of content is mention in conjunction with a reference to policy. May I humbly inquire, do you support the section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections? If so, why? If so, did you express your desire to blank the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections earlier and I missed it, and can you please provide a diff or date-time for my education? Because I don't recall any talk page discussion of blanking the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, but I suppose I might have missed it, my recollection is these major edits were not discussed. Can you expand on how blanking the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections addressed WP:UNDUE issues and increased the neutrality of the article? What was non-neutral about the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Comatmebro (and Champaign Supernova for the lovely recap provided above). We all, and several other editors obviously don't see eye to eye on everything, but somehow we manage to work through it. However, although even after HughD continues to WP:FORUMSHOP (I think he's up to 6 venues seeking support), and after he gets shot down for the (not sure, lost count) on the edit war board, he immediately goes and places an NPOV tag on the article, contrary to consensus. Simply amazing how some folks simply don't want to learn consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party here. I dont have much to say towards the above that would be original. Ha! We've done this again and again. The page currently says there is a NPOV issue. Safe to assume only Hugh thinks that? I thought there was a NPOV and COATRACKING issue before the recent edits. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"It is here for you on the talk page." Where is the talk page discussion which you claim culminated in a consensus in support for your section blanking "Transparency" and "Funding"? Hugh (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand consensus is very important to you. Section blanking is a major edit. Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking "Transparency" and "Funding," where we all together collaboratively discussed how blanking these sections, and removing dozens of reliable sources, would be an improvement to the article, with all of your well-reasoned arguments detailed, with copious references to relevant policy and guidelines, signed with your signatures, because you are not hypocrites. Hugh (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, maybe you didn't see it, but here [15] I did a rather exhaustive accounting of the numerous times in recent weeks that a variety of editors have agreed, among other things, that the funding and transparency content was overly detailed, WP:UNDUE and a violation WP:NPOV. As for the full sections getting deleted, IMO this is a case of the sections needing to be blow up. They had become so hopelessly non-neutral and coat-racky that the best thing to do is to start over. Contrary to what you've been claiming on various noticeboards, these sections were not "workshopped collaboratively." They were almost single-handedly crafted and pushed through by you. Taking a look at the edit history of the article and of this talk page, it's pretty clear that you steam-rolled everyone else to get your way. Maybe if you were willing to make some compromises on your proposed content, you could gain consensus for re-adding some of it. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw it. I have been an active editor, active on talk, and I've been on the prevailing and non-prevailing sides of many issues arising, as might be expected from any good article drive. What's your point? You give me too much credit, thank you. This article was developed collaboratively as clearly evidenced by the talk, and in sharp contrast to the recent cowardly, undiscussed content blanking. Please direct readers of this talk page to a comment in a thread, arguing for the section blanking of "Transparency" and "Funding," with YOUR signature at the end, Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero. Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My own brief summarization of the recent talk page would be somewhat different from yours: as the article approached the completeness of coverage of reliable sources required by good article criteria, yes, several editors decided they would really much rather prefer an incomplete article to a good article, and began posting vague comments about "too much detail" or "NPOV," (should I enumerate them for you?) But when pressed for a specific item of content, (need I enumerate them?) you, and no one else, had the personal integrity to step up. Knowing the sourcing was good, and the content a reasonable summary of reliable sources, and that measured discussion based on policy and guideline did not support their preferred deletes, everyone egged each other on to wield the ax until someone did. This is the exact opposite of consensus. It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it. Hugh (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your tone is getting out of hand. I don't appreciate the personal attacks. If you continue to make them, I will start a thread at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard seeking a WP:TBAN for you in the area of American politics. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't appreciate personal attacks, you say? Hugh (talk)

Yes, and I just left a reminder about our WP:NPA policies on your talk page. I encourage you to strike through your comments calling other editors "cowardly" as well as your comment calling me "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." The snark is not helpful. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong. I am excited to learn that you plan to courageously support consensus by joining me in asking our collaborators, hey, section blanking is kinda major, guys, where's the discussion? Thank you in advance for your support. You know what would final final really help clear this misunderstanding up with me is if you could just point me to a talk page comment here of the form roughly "Gee, I really think we should not cover AFP's funding, can't we agree by consensus that these reliable sources do not exist, and blank this section?" Signed, Champaign Supernova. That would have been courageous and distinguished you from your peers. For weeks I have endured a deluge of impossibly vague posts about "too much detail" or "not neutral" and BEGGED every time for the editor to get specific and get the conversation started. Where were you? Now I guess I know what "too much detail" and "not neutral" mean. "Too much detail" means funding is not allowed no matter what investigative journalism says, and "not neutral" means no unfavorable/negative content no matter what RS says. Hugh (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If this insincere "apology" and string of sarcasm are the best you can do to build good faith with fellow editors, I'm afraid you're going to have a very difficult time gaining the community's support for your actions. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• While I think a lot of stuff had way more detail than was necessary, the fact that AFP was founded by the Koch brothers and is seen as a part of their political network is clearly one of the most notable things about it; nearly every source that isn't directly from AFP itself touches on it. They definitely need to be mentioned in the lead, ideally within the first sentence or so, since as far as I can tell most of the independent coverage of AFP has been focused on that aspect. Other aspects of the leadership and structure don't strike me as important; likewise, individual initiatives don't really matter (the entire "Programs and advocacy" section could be massively trimmed.) But based on the coverage that I can see, discussion of its relation to the Koch brothers could make up a significant part of the article without being WP:UNDUE; I'd identify it as one of the few areas that can't be trimmed or cut, since almost every source makes it central to AFP's description. The current article (where the Koch name doesn't even appear aside from a mention buried under a bunch of other names in the leadership structure section) badly violates WP:NPOV in that it fails to give WP:DUE weight to an aspect that is clearly considered very important by most of the reliable sources that have covered it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"But based on the coverage that I can see, discussion of its relation to the Koch brothers could make up a significant part of the article without being WP:UNDUE; I'd identify it as one of the few areas that can't be trimmed or cut, since almost every source makes it central to AFP's description. The current article (where the Koch name doesn't even appear aside from a mention buried under a bunch of other names in the leadership structure section) badly violates WP:NPOV in that it fails to give WP:DUE weight to an aspect that is clearly considered very important by most of the reliable sources that have covered it." This talk page currently includes multiple active threads of discussion on the neutrality of this article. Fellow editors are respectfully reminded please do not remove the NPOV article page tag until this issue is resolved. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation in avoiding disruptive editing. Hugh (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Koch Brothers and weight in coverage

I feel that this has gotten caught up in arguments over specific text, so I've started a new section for it; we need to discuss the basic question of how much focus the article should give to the Koch Brothers' relationship with AFP. Plainly some people feel that it is a WP:NPOV violation to talk about it at all (since it seems to have been scoured from the article entirely in recent edits); but I feel that it's such a clearly major theme in almost all reliable coverage that it needs to be given similarly heavy weight in the article. A quick survey of the sources shows that it's almost always the first thing mentioned about the group:

• Factcheck: "Founded by billionaire businessman and conservative/libertarian political activist David Koch" is the first sentence.
• National Journal: "Most of the political world knows the basics about AFP: It's funded in part by billionaire industrialists (and favorite Democratic villains) Charles and David Koch." Lists the fact that it was founded by the Koch brothers as the first thing everyone knows about it.
• New York Times: "But he has a long way to go to catch up with the Koch brothers, whose own group, Americans for Prosperity,"
• Washington Post: "One of the major players on the right is Americans for Prosperity, a group co-founded by conservative billionaire David Koch."
• Washington Post: (describing the "Koch-backed network"): "Its main political organ, the free-market advocacy group Americans for Prosperity,"
• Washington Post: "Americans for Prosperity, the on-the-ground wing of the network of conservative organizations spearheaded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch," First sentence again.
• Kenosha News: "Americans for Prosperity — the conservative group funded by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch — is getting involved..." First sentence again.
• Huffington Post: "Americans for Prosperity — the main political arm of billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch"
• The Hill: "The group, which is backed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch..." Second sentence.
• Mother Jones: "On Monday Americans for Prosperity, the conservative nonprofit group founded by billionaire David Koch..." First sentence.
• LA Times: "Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the panel signed a pledge distributed by a Koch-founded advocacy group — Americans for Prosperity..."
• New York Times (Describing the Koch network.) "But as 3,000 activists, dozens of big donors and a gaggle of presidential aspirants gathered here for a pre-election conference held by the network’s flagship political organization, Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs’ political operation is confronting the anxieties of influence."
• Wall Street Journal "But other groups – including Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit backed by the billionaire Koch brothers –"
• Mother Jones: "At least half of the one-on-one sessions involved representatives of Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group founded by the Koch brothers and their top political adviser and strategist, Richard Fink,"
• Politico: "David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity Foundation"
• National Journal "David Koch Seeded Major Tea-Party Group, Private Donor List Reveals" (That's the headline. They devoted an entire article to it.)
• International Business Times "Money In Politics: The Companies Behind David Koch’s Americans For Prosperity". That's the headline, again.
• Slate "In the past, Charles Koch and his allies have criticized Cato for lacking real, provable results. Since then, David has found tremendous success with Americans for Prosperity,"
• New York Times "The one Koch-financed group mentioned by name at the meeting was Americans for Prosperity"
• The Guardian "Americans for Prosperity, the rightwing campaign funded in part by the energy billionaires the Koch brothers," First sentence.

...this was just me going down the list of sources; I stopped about a sixth of the way through because I figured this was more than enough, but I only had to skip a handful of sources while making that list, and even the ones I skipped almost always mentioned the Koch brothers. I don't think the sources in the article are unrepresentative, either; the fact that the Koch Brothers' support is the most noteworthy thing about AFP seems to be entirely uncontroversial and nearly-unanimous among reliable sources (frequently, 'Koch funded' or the like is the only description AFP gets, and often "Koch-funded group" comes first, before mentioning its name.) Many, many sources describe it as their direct political arm or as the centerpiece of their political network; that claim might be a bit more controversial (in the sense that we would want to use in-text attributions for it), but it is clearly noteworthy enough that the article needs to devote significant weight to it. These are mostly high-quality, high-profile sources, and as far as I can tell nobody has provided an actual argument for ignoring the heavy emphasis they place on the Koch Brothers' backing of AFP and its connection to their political network -- yes, there was a lot of unnecessary stuff in the article, but it's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we can discuss exactly how to describe it, but I think it's clear that the connection to the Koch Brothers is central to most of AFP's coverage, core to how it's generally described by reliable sources, and therefore needs to be similarly core to this article. Other details about its funding or activities are relatively unimportant and can be trimmed, but omitting the Koch brothers entirely (or failing to mention them prominently in the lead) plainly violates WP:NPOV; our job is to cover AFP the way it is covered by reliable sources, which have clearly been near-unanimous in making the Koch brothers central to describing what AFP is. AFP and the Koch brothers might disagree or downplay it (this link touches on that, and there's another denial here), but NPOV means covering a source according to the way reliable sources cover it, regardless; we can describe their objection, but giving the overwhelming unanimity of sources, we still have to make the fact that the organization is Koch-funded (and frequently described as part of their political network) central to the article. --Aquillion (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and compelling contribution to this talk page. I look forward to your continued engagment. You put in a lot of work reading and summarizing RS, thank you for that. I'm not sure lack of familiarity with RS is the core issue. Last week, as this article approached the completeness of coverage of reliable sources required by good article criteria, an editor decided they preferred an incomplete article to a good article, and subjected the article to severe content blanking in this area, as well as section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, other important aspects of the notability of the subject of this article. This purge left our article in a state which is a serious embarrassment to our project. The only mention of Koch left in the article is that David is chair of the board of directors of the Foundation, a point of fact immediately obvious from public records such as GuideStar and others. This knocks the article roughly back to where it was before the current good article drive, roughly February 2015. Yes, we are in the embarrassing position of having far less information in our article regarding the relationship of the Kochs to the subject of this article, than a reader might find in any one secondary source account. This purge would be comical in its pointedness if it were not so soul-wrenchingly discouraging. Hugh (talk)

Could you please expand on your comment that "NPOV means covering a source according to the way reliable sources cover it" because some experienced editors interpret NPOV to mandate a balance of "favorable" vs. "unfavorable," that is, "flattering" vs. "unflattering," content. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your view of the relationship between our NPOV pillar and consensus? The reason I ask is that there seems to be an idea that a local consensus may be used to overrule NPOV and exclude well-referenced, noteworthy, reliably sourced content. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? I believe a first step may be some editor education regarding the implications of NPOV. Thank you again. Hugh (talk)

I dont think anyone is saying the page should have no mention of the Kochs. But attempting to WP:COATRACK this page to make it an attack page is a POV push. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous concession that the article may mention the Kochs. You have take your first, small step to understanding NPOV! Hugh (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Here on this article talk page, please help us all focus on specific content in relation to policy, guideline, and best practices. Please identify a specific item of content you believe violates WP:COATRACK. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So I guess you've given up any effort to create goodwill or a rapport with any other editor on this page Hugh. Thats fine. Because your POV is not a neutral one, as per what almost everyone has said. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two main ways to accomplish NPOV on Wikipedia: Content weight proportional to the extent of coverage in reliable sources, and neutral/dispassionate wording. By my reading of sources, the most important aspect of AFP is their political influence as "one of the main arms of the Koch brothers conservative political machine".- MrX 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your heroic effort to document the noteworthiness of the relationship of the subject of this article to the Kochs. May I humbly comment that your survey of the current, early references in the article, impressive as it is, is skewed, to understate the more general situation in RS, by the recent undiscussed purging of dozens of reliable sources. Thanks again for your considerable elbow grease in bringing policy-based editing to this article. Hugh (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the talk page, Aquillion. According to other users this has been a heroic effort on your part. As you can see, there have been some issues in the past regarding this article and its NPOV. Recent editors have done nothing but to try and improve the article, as well as work through its obstacles. I understand your point of view completely. It is not that I disagree with the Koch's involvement with the AFP nor their contributions to its founding. I understand that that is a vital part of the AFP, however, the way that those views were represented (or misrepresented) within the article (prior to a couple days ago), deemed WP:UNDUE to me. There is a way to describe and discuss such important details without having them completely takeover and drown the article. The article is specifically about AFP, not about the Koch's, and I feel that while mentioning important details, the article should focus on it's subject. Perhaps it is simply a matter of re-wording, or like you said, discussing "how to describe it." I think this would be very beneficial to the article. My only concern is keeping the article neutral. Yes -- it is true that through WP:NPOV we rely on reliable, noteworthy and prominent sources, but according to Wiki policy, we "proportionately" rely on them in order to avoid bias. I think that proportionately is the key word here, and it is something that all editors need to focus on. We can make this article satisfactory to all users -- but most importantly we can make it neutral and unbiased, therefore appropriate for all readers. Hope this comment finds itself of contribution to the discussion. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Recent editors have done nothing but to try and improve the article" Recent editors have section blanked, content blanked, and removed reliable source references, making the article less neutral with respect to reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"There is a way to describe and discuss such important details without having them completely takeover and drown the article. The article is specifically about AFP, not about the Koch's" Sorry. If you understand NPOV and you have even a cursory familiarity with reliable sources on the subject of this article, you have to understand it is almost impossible to over-represent the relationship between the subject of this article and the Kochs. The article underrepresented the relationship between the subject of this article and the Kochs, proportional to representation in reliable sources, before "recent editors." Glad to hear you talking about "proportionality," though. Hugh (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Perhaps it is simply a matter of re-wording" The best way to address an opportunity for re-wording is re-wording, not section blanking. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I am speaking solely on my behalf, Hugh. I have not "section blanked" anything. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Above on 1 July you wrote:

"I think that the edits of Onel5969 in regards to the "Funding" and "Transparency" sections specifically addressed the problem of wp:undue that we have been dealing with in the past few weeks. The sections were simply non-neutral, therefore the elimination of them has increased the neutrality of the article..."

This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of WP:DUE not usually associated with experienced editors such as yourself. We sometimes find this type of misapplication of WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors. If you understand WP:DUE, and you are familiar with reliable sources on the subject of this article, and do not support the undiscussed section blanking of the "Funding" and "Transparency" sections, kindly clarify your position for all of us through your editorial actions by reverting the undiscussed section blanking of the "Funding" and "Transparency" sections. It's long overdue time for you to drop your scare quotes off "proportionately" and embrace your new, fuller understanding of our neutrality pillar through your edits. If you restore both sections in consecutive edits it counts as 1 revert toward your daily allowance. Thank you in advance for your support of our pillar of neutrality. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"My only concern is keeping the article neutral." Please I think it would be great progress on this talk page if we could hear a bit more from you about what you mean when you say "neutral." The reason I ask is that it seems that you mean something different from most. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

For reference a brief relevant excerpt from WP:DUE showing our new vocabulary builder word "proportion" used in the context of a complete sentence:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." - WP:DUE

Hugh (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The details on how the Kochs (might have) funded the organization are irrelevant, and including multiple (incompatible) theories on the funding mechanisms is undue weight. As for transparency, the fact that 501 (c)(3) and (4) organizations are not required to reveal their donors, even to the IRS, is extremely relevant to the accusations of non-transparency. These organizations, like the ACLU, are not supposed to be transparent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to your personal opinion, however, here on our encyclopedia coverage in our articles is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, as you know as an experienced editor. Voluminous reliable sources on the Koch funding of the subject of this article, the transparency of the subject of this article, and the extent of the subject of this article's political activities with respect to its chosen filing status, mandate coverage in our article in order to bring it into conformance with our neutrality pillar, as you know as an experienced editor. Hugh (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The details about how the Kochs funded AFP are very relevant to this article, at least according to how our sources discuss the organization. If you know of reliable sources that cast doubt on such funding as you seem to imply, then that material can be presented as well, however if it represents a fringe viewpoint, then it has to be presented as such. WP:PROFRINGE and WP:PARITY apply.- MrX 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The recent undiscussed section blanking of the "Transparency" section included an entire paragraph detailing multiple various reasons the subject of this article has given for its non-disclosure, meticulously referenced. Among those reasons was the one you mentioned, that the subject of this article does not disclose because they are not legally required to disclose. Other reasons were included in our article as well. The content was neutral, offering good coverage of all significant points of view, including the views of the subject of this article. That you personally passionately believe the legal case for non-disclosure is open & shut does not make the voluminous reliable sources on the topic of the transparency of the subject of this article, and the extensive investigative journalism into its funding, go away. We are asked to fairly summarize the breadth of reliable sources, not to decide legal issues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you the principal editor removing the sentence that the organizations are not required to disclose?

Arthur, I participated in the team of editors that added a few brief, concise, sentences to the body summarizing background, context of the legal parameters of the chosen filing status of the subject of this article, important context for understanding our summarization of the voluminous reliable sources regarding the transparency of the subject of this article. Of the many constraints on their operations the subject of this article accepted when granted the privilege of tax exemption, one is the lack of disclosure requirement, and another is limitations on their political activity. A collaborator non-neutrally cherry-picked one of these constraints for inclusion in the lede. Also, since the consequences of tax-exemption are not unique to the subject of this article, they are not notable about the subject of this article, and so are not appropriate for our lede. See the threads "Lede section" and "Tax exemption" above if you have more questions about this. This thread is about the due weight of the coverage of the subject of this article's realtionship t othe Kochs. Your focus on one clause in the lede is inappropriate. Let's get the body right and circle back to the lede. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

But Arthur, you know all this. Please refrain from asking questions you know the answer to, that is not helpful here on this article talk page. You know better. You understand NPOV. You understand the preponderance of the Koch relationship in RS on the subject of this article. Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says? Hugh (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, please help us all focus on the current content of the article here on this article talk page. Let me ask you, right now that article says that David chairs the board of directors of the AFP Foundation; that's it. Is the coverage of the subject of this article's relationship with the Kochs heavy, light, or just right? Hugh (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Your failure to follow the consensus established in #"Tax Exemption" sentence above is part of the reason that the "Transparency" section is now gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

However, it needs more about the current funding, which includes the Kochs, although much less than the version you seemed to prefer. The funding section included only organizations directly connected to the Kochs. There must be other organizations connected to AFP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The complaint made there is clearly not valid, though. We definitely cannot include a sentence saying "all tax-exempt, non-profit social welfare organizations are exempt from disclosure" in a manner that implies that this is relevant to the complaints to AFP without a source specifically connecting it to Americans for Prosperity; citing rules in order to encourage readers to reach a conclusion (eg. that the way Americans for Prosperity works is or is not all right) is WP:SYNTH. What we can do is cite reliable sources who have discussed the topic -- if many reliable sources have said there are problems with how it is funded, we must report that; if other sources (or AFP itself) have given rebuttals, we must report those. But we cannot rebut any claims ourselves in article text, or take a sourced complaint and respond to it in article text by saying "but we, as Wikipedia editors, feel that this is acceptable because of our interpretation these specific rules..."; that would be WP:SYNTH. We can only report the analysis and coverage of reliable sources with the weight appropriate to how it appears in those sources. A point that no reliable source has raised about AFP therefore cannot be placed in the article. In any case (while I agree it's too wordy and overly-detailed), deleting the entire section over that dispute is plainly inappropriate; I don't see a consensus for that. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, you are using your permitted one revert per week on Tea Party movement articles, to remove the NPOV article tag from a Tea Party movement article that clearly has an ongoing, active, multi-thread, multi-editor talk page discussion of its neutrality? Really? You are an admin editing under arbcom sanctions, and you are here on the talk page of a Tea Party movement article, so close to your expiry, defending section blanking as justified by a dispute over a clause in a lede? Really? Some of us here on this talk page are working hard to bring some editors to a more full understanding of our neutrality pillar, and you show up waving the banner of consensus? Really? You well understand what our project founder meant when he said neutrality is not negotiable. I must insist you self-revert your pointy, unjustified, disruptive, deletion of the NPOV article hat. Please note a self-revert does not count against your weekly quota, you need not wait 'til next week. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"The funding section included only organizations directly connected to the Kochs." Absolutely false. Please refrain from using deceit to mislead readers of this talk page discussion. Kindly strike this comment. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Meticulously referenced excerpt from the "Funding" section as of 22 June, section blanked without discussion 23 June by user Onel5969:

Several major American companies also donated hundreds of thousands to the initial funding of the AFP Foundation, including $275,000 from State Farm Insurance and lesser amounts from 1-800 Contacts, medical products firm Johnson & Johnson, and carpet and flooring manufacturer Shaw Industries....North Carolina philanthropist Art Pope, a founding board member of AFP and a former AFP board chair, is the second largest institutional backer of the AFP Foundation. In 2010, the AFP Foundation received $1.35 million from the John William Pope Foundation, chaired by Pope, and AFP received half a million dollars from the Bradley Foundation. AFP received smaller grants in 2012 from tobacco company Reynolds American and in 2010 and 2012 from the American Petroleum Institute. The donor-advised fund Donors Trust granted $11 million to AFP between 2002 and 2010 and $7 million to the AFP Foundation in 2010.

Hugh (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"...it needs more about the current funding, which includes the Kochs" Thank you for your generous concession that this article may include funding, and may include funding by the Kochs. Please continue to meditate further on this issue until you awaken to a full understand of our neutrality pillar, and you may eventually come to the realization that coverage in articles is proportional to coverage in reliable sources as have most editors of your experience. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"Tax Exemption" sentence

Well, this recent edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&diff=668230876&oldid=668228803) brings up another issue. This is how it currently stands:

In the 2014 mid-term election cycle, AFP led all groups other than political action committees in spending on political television advertising. AFP's scope of operations has drawn comparisons to political parties. AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits. The extent of AFP's political activities while operating as a tax-exempt entity has raised concerns among some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats regarding the transparency of its funding.

How it previously stood:

In the 2014 mid-term election cycle, AFP led all groups other than political action committees in spending on political television advertising. AFP's scope of operations has drawn comparisons to political parties. AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits. As a tax-exempt non-profit, AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors. The extent of AFP's political activities while operating as a tax-exempt entity has raised concerns among some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats regarding the transparency of its funding.

I believe it should stand as either the original, or:

In the 2014 mid-term election cycle, AFP led all groups other than political action committees in spending on political television advertising. AFP's scope of operations has drawn comparisons to political parties. AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits.

Should be one or the other. Either keep in both, or take out both. Because the way it stands now is POV. Its just a critique of AFP, when it legally does not have to disclose anything. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The lede sumamrizes the notability of the subject WP:LEDE. Not exactly sure why we need a new thread on this, it is coverage at length above. While it is perfectly true that "AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors", it is also true of the entire class of tax exempt non-profits, therefore it is not notable of the subject of this article, therefore it does not belong in the lede. What is very highly notable about the subject of this article is the copious coverage in reliable sources of expressed concerns and complaints to regulatory agencies, from our President, from editorial boards, from political parties, and from watchdog groups, of the notable extent of the subject of this article's political activities, while enjoying the many benefits of tax exemption, including exemption from taxation, and non-disclosure. Another detail of the legal implications of the chosen filing status of the subject of this article is that it limit its political activities, a legal implication which you somehow failed to mention in your proposed addition to the lede. The details of the legal implications of the laws and rules pertaining to the Internal Revenue Service filing status chosen by the subject of this article are highly relevant context for inclusion in the body of this article, but of course are not what is notable about the subject of this article, and so are not appropriate for the lede. The subject of this article is very, very notable for the extent of its political activity in its chosen category of tax-exempt social welfare non-profits. It's in RS, it's in the body of our article, and it's in our lede. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please suggest an alternative summarization of the Tranparency section for the lede which is not nothing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

More attempts by HughD to insert a non-neutral viewpoint. Previously already discussed and a consensus reached. Yet he brings it up over and over. Onel5969 (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The average reader may not know that, as Hugh says here [16], "ALL tax-exempt, non-profit social welfare organizations are exempt from disclosure." It is a violation of our WP:NPOV policy to say that the organization has been criticized for a lack of transparency when we've failed to elucidate for the reader that transparency is not legally required. We say in the lede that "AFP, an educational social welfare organization, and the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a public charity, are tax-exempt non-profits." So contrary to Hugh's assertions, we already are including "technical details of their selected IRS filing status" in the lede. This has been discussed numerous times on the talk page, and each time, Hugh is the only editor who has argued against including the neutrally worded fact that AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of a compelling reason to take it out or how that additional bit of context would detract from the goal of providing good encyclopedic coverage of the topic. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We cannot put it there because it is WP:SYNTH, unless we have a source specifically relating it to this subject. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A number of sources discuss how the organization is not required to disclose its donors. For example, there is the FactCheck source already cited in this article [17] and PolitiFact [18]. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree "AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors" is multiply, reliably sourced and belongs in the article, and it was, until the undiscussed section blanking of 23 June which you defend. That does not mean it goes in the lede. Of course I grant you there are any number of reasonble-sounding points you could make by citing one source in isolation. I would like to invite you to join our community in fairly summarizing across the breadth of reliable sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Another aspect of the subject of this article discussed in a number of reliable sources is the extent of its political activities given the requirements in law and rule as a consequence of its chosen filing status as a tax-exempt, social welfare non-profit. The legal constraints are important background context for understanding the preponderance of reliable sources, and so are necessary in the body, but they are not unique to the subject of this article, and so are not appropriate in the lede. But if we DID detail the legal parameters in the lede, I sure you would not want to cherry pick the legal parameeters, say for example to non-neutrally support a summarization in our lede, "AFP is not legally required to disclose its donors, but some think it should anyway," because this would be grossly pointing oversimplification of a complex issue. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Operating free from taxation is a privilege, not a right. You may disagree with this, but it is so. One of the benefit of the privilege of tax exemption is exemption from taxation. Another benefit of the privilege of tax exemption is that in general you are not required to disclose your donors. To be granted the privilege of tax exempt operation, a corporation agrees to constraints on its operations. A constraint on corporations enjoying the privilege of tax exemption includes limitations on political activities. Please stop pretend you do not understand this. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Another approach we find in number of reliable sources, which you failed to mention in your recent comment, is that writers find it useful to explain to their readers the controversy regarding the scope of the political operations of the subject of this article by comparing an contrasting the subject of this article with Political action committees. In this country, we have a legal framework and an oversight infrastructure for corporations who wish to operate with no limitations on their political activities. Of course that framework includes disclosure. Citizens United re-affirmed the role of disclosure in political speech. You may disagree with this, but it is so. The subject of this article chose a different legal framework. No one forced the subject of this article to file as a tax-exempt non-profit. Authors writing about AFP have found it convenient and succinct to compare and contrast the subject of this article with a PAC; it makes the issue clearer: the subject of this article is a tax-exempt, social welfare non-profit that walks & quacks like a PAC; it takes the non-disclosure of non-profits and combines it with the unfettered political expression of PACs; this is a key if not the key aspect of its notability. It is one of if not the most politically active corporation in its class of non-profit filing status. Multiple RS state that the choice of filing status is driven by the non-disclosure. If memory serves you deleted this content and rs refs. Hugh (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A reminder to readers of this thread: it is a discussion of an addition of a clause to the lede; the sourcing is not an issue. Hugh (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Internal rivalries

Aquillion Perhaps the most audaciously pointed deletion in last week's stunning purge of highly reliable references from this article was the removal of Jane Mayer's "Covert Operations" report in the New Yorker.

Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 20, 2015. internal rivalries at Citizens for a Sound Economy caused the organization to split apart. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

This report remains a touchstone in investigative journalism into the political activities of the Kochs, and so is a perennial favorite target of apologists. I welcome your engagement in this good article drive, but may I respectfully and humbly urge caution and talk page dialog in deleting content which appears unsupported by references at this point. So much noteworthy content has been deleted at this point that almost everything worth adding is a technically a reversion. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This source is sufficiently important to neutral coverage of the subject of this article that it was referenced in support of seven items of content as recently as 22 June, please see version [19]. This source was deleted 23 June by user Onel5969 with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality," along with several other reliable source references, as a small part of an undiscussed major purge of Koch-related content and references, see diff. So there is no doubt further damage to the article from the unilateral, undiscussed, pointed, careless content blanking yet to be discovered. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that Mayer's opinion is a reliable source, so I must act accordingly. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't consider better sources, and consider it less reliable when contradicted by other reliable sources. We can all agree the work is notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Once more I ask that you revert your removeal of the NPOV article hat from this article. You removed the NPOV article hat from a Tea Party movement article, while multiple threads on the neutrality of the article involving multiple editors were ongoing at article talk, and while you and the article are under discretionary sanctions, and then engaged on the talk page in introducing a new generation of editors to your personal theory that consensus overrides our neutrality pillar when it comes to the Kochs. Please show your commitment to avoiding disruptive editing and revert your removal of the NPOV article hat. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I removed the NPOV tag, since the issue was resolved prior to it being placed there. A single editor refusing to agree to consensus does not constitute lack of resolution. It merely highlights that editor's failure to understand or abide by consensus. I would ask that editor to self-revert, in order to show he understands consensus. And no, I won't be responding to any of that editor's post, since it is a waste of time, as exhibited by his NPOV tag.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This talk page currently includes multiple active threads of discussion on the neutrality of this article. Fellow editors are respectfully reminded please do not remove the NPOV article page tag until this issue is resolved. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation in avoiding disruptive editing. Hugh (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The issues from the previous NPOV tag were resolved; the guidelines state that new NPOV tags on the same issues should not be added without consensus, and suggest that new NPOV tags on related issues should not be added without consensus. It would have been better if you were willing to remove the tag, but previous experience suggests otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Partial list of requests for specific content of concern and specific relevant policy and guideline

As this article's collaborative good article effort approached the completeness of coverage of reliable sources required by good article criteria, some editors began peppering the talk page with vague comments of the sense of "too much detail," "irrelevant," or "non-neutral." Many, many polite requests were made to get the talk page conversation started, by identifying a specific item of content of concern and the specific relevant policy or guideline, and these request were most often ignored.

1. May I ask, can you be more specific about your issues ... Hugh (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Please comment if you have reasonable concerns about specific areas of undue weight ... Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
3. 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 ... Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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 ... Thank you! Hugh (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
9. 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)
10. Specifically what do you consider non-neutral? Hugh (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
11. 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)
12. Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
13. 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)
14. Please reference specific policy and guideline in your talk page coments...Thank you for your comments. Hugh (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
15. Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
16. 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)
17. 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...Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
18. 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)
19. 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...Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
20. Thank you for your talk page engagement in which a specific item of content is mention in conjunction with a reference to policy...Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
21. Here on this article talk page, please help us all focus on specific content in relation to policy, guideline, and best practices. Please identify a specific item of content you believe violates WP:COATRACK. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
22. Please explain your thinking with specific reference to the above proposed content and sources, and policy and guideline. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
23. Can you please be more specific about what you see as coat racking? Is your contention that the whole section is coat rack? Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This pattern of non-response is so widespread on this talk page that, were it not for our principle of assuming good faith, one might interpret this demonstrated reluctance to get down to specifics as a recognition that the non-prefered content was a neutral, noteworthy, reasonable paraphrase of reliable sources, and a recognition that policy and guideline did not support removal. Some of the same editors who declined to respond to polite reasonable requests for specifics instead embraced bold, undiscussed blanking of neutral, noteworthy content and reliable source references, and were among the most outspoken supporters of the misguided position that a local consensus may be used to override our pillar of neutrality. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be best if, rather than focussing on editors and accusations about editorial inaction or unresponsiveness, we focussed on edits. Since we are all volunteers, complaining bitterly that others don't respond as quickly as one would like is not helpful. The accusation that a consensus at an article is somehow contrary to the core pillars of wikipedia is silly. Editors concerned that a local consensus runs contrary to policy are encouraged to begin the RfC process to engage the larger community. There is no sign that editors here, many of whom are long term senior editors, have any problems with core pillars whatsoever. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This does seem a little out of place here, HughD. It seems like you're raising a user conduct issue rather than an article content issue. Y'all have some fresh eyes on this page right now given the current AE and ANI discussions, may I suggest that it might be helpful to try and re-focus on content here, and leave the inter-personal/conduct issues to be addressed on those boards? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)