Talk:Americans for Prosperity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Explaining my recent edits

Hi everyone, I made a number of edits yesterday that have since been reverted. I wanted to explain them here:

• I added this sentence [1] to the lede per discussion above at #Koch Brothers and weight in coverage and #Lede section #"Tax Exemption" sentence and elsewhere. We can of course keep discussing the merits of including that sentence in the lede here on talk.

• I think this [2] was a pretty clear grammar fix. When donations are made, I think the standard preposition is that funding comes "from" people and not "by" them.

• I added a "when" clarification tag here [3] because I thought "AFP viewed itself as a counterbalance to a network of liberal activist organizations and unions" was an awkward sentence. When did AFP view itself as such? Does it not view itself as such anymore? Happily, another editor, MrX, addressed this issue by re-wording the sentence (his edit, like mine, has since been reverted). [4]

• As I explained in my edit summary here [5], McCain ran for President in 2008, so it wouldn't have been possible for Nancy Pfotenhauer to have been his campaign's spokesperson previous to her 2004-7 tenure at AFP. The way the sentence is currently worded, it leaves it open as to whether Pfotenhauer was his advisor prior to or perhaps simultaneous to her tenure at AFP. Or did she leave AFP to become his advisor? It's unnecessarily confusing.

• Per WP:SAY, we shouldn't use the term "claimed." [6]

• This was another verb tense issue [7]. It says AFP was active in elections. Are they not active anymore? When did they stop being active?

• It seemed appropriate to wiki-link the president of the group upon first mention, who does have his own Wikipedia page. [8]

• Here [9] I tried to clarify a very long, cumbersome, grammatically troublesome sentence by splitting it into two and changing strangely-placed semi-colons to commas. I thought this increased the readability and ease of comprehension of the material presented.

• This information on the total amount of money spent by US nonprofits in 2010 doesn't seem particularly relevant to AFP. [10]

• I thought this edit enhanced neutrality and adhered more closely to the available sources [11]

• Poor sentence structure here unfortunately makes it look like we're putting Obama's critique of AFP in Wikipedia's voice--we need to be careful to phrase it in such a way as to show the critique was Obama's. [12]

• Here I think we were able to maintain meaning and enhance neutrality while trimming excess verbiage [13]

• Here I removed a source published under the banner of Huffington Post's WP:BLOG by a staffer for the Institute for Southern Studies. This didn't seem to meet the WP:RS criteria for facts about AFP's funding, as the ISS and AFP are ideologically opposed. [14]

• I removed the funding sub-heading, because as I stated in my edit summary [15], it makes it look like perhaps AFP hasn't received any funding since 2012, which doesn't seem likely. Also per WP:MOS, we're to avoid short, unnecessary sub-headings.

• I don't know what needs to be clarified here per this tag--a reason on the tag would be helpful [16].

• That Michigan may be the "birthplace of the modern labor movement" sounds like an opinion, and it doesn't seem particularly relevant to AFP [17].

• I removed ThinkProgress as a source per WP:CITEKILL, WP:RS and WP:BLOGS. All content in the article still has sourcing, so we didn't need these sources for verification anyway. [18]

• I took the description of Koch Industries from the cited sources [19]. Now it looks like we don't have any description at all?

• I removed duplicate citations to the same article [20]. Is there a reason we need two separate citations for the same reference?

So, those are my explanations for my individual edits, please let me know if any of them don't make sense. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. You and MrX seem to have made good work on some cleanup. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Class B?

Because of the revert to a POV version of the article by Viriditas, and all the requests by HughD for various extensive changes to the article (on multiple message boards), this article clearly cannot be considered stable enough for class B. To avoid edit wars, I'm not going to change it. This is independent of POV concerns. I would think any editor conversant with the rating guidelines would agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, stability is not a requirement for Class B. NPOV is, though, and we all agree the article fails NPOV, even though we don't agree where. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, members of the various Wikiprojects would objectively rate the article according to their respective quality criteria. That said, I have no objection to resetting everything to C class until we can reach consensus on more of the disputed content.- MrX 21:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. X Capitalismojo (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting rollback

A user yesterday made a HUGE edit that effectively restored all content to the page that all of us deemed non-neutral. This user justified the move claiming "restoring neutrality as per talk". Talk has no such consensus. The only item that users have supported reinsterting is a sentence about Koch funding... Nowhere near the 20000 bytes of COATRACK and NPOV issues present. Since then, several edits have been made. If I simply rolled back the page to an earlier edition with far fewer, albeit still some minor ones, issues I can imagine I'd be accused of all sorts of things and brought up on notice boards by one particular user. So I am asking here that we agree to roll the page back to the previous edition. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you would be "accused of all sorts of things and brought up on notice boards by one particular user". That particular user should be "accused of all sorts of things and brought up on notice boards". I'm sure the article would be much more neutral and stable. In any case, I approve of a rollback. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This article has ebbed and flowed between "washes," both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a WP:COATRACK with too many intricate funding details per WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground. I didn't find Viriditas's massive undiscussed reversion, which went against many talk page discussions here, to be a step in the right direction. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

By "too many intricate funding details" do you mean "funding"? What is your basis in policy or guideline for saying the article has "too many intricate funding details"? My only awareness of a policy or guideline applicable to this issue is our neutrality pillar, which as you hopefully know by now, states clearly that coverage in our articles is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Do you persist in not understanding WP:DUE, or are you still unclear about the coverage of the funding of the subject of this article in reliable sources? Please clarify so we can address your concern. Hugh (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

By "too many intricate funding details" I mean "too many intricate funding details." The funding/transparency sections resemble a WP:CHERRYPICKed laundry list of funding details that do not seem commensurate to coverage in WP:RS per WP:WEIGHT. The majority of available sources about this organization focus on its political activities/advocacy, not listing each and every funder by year. Our article becomes non-neutral and in violation of our WP:WEIGHT policy by preferentially including exhaustive funding detail at the expense of more WP:NOTABLE content about this organization's not insignificant political advocacy efforts. If you want to argue for specific inclusion of material, please do so--it doesn't seem particularly useful to go back and forth about the meta issue. Gain consensus for specific material and we can move forward. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"listing each and every funder by year" The article does not now and never did and never will list each and every funder by year. I recognize the form of your argument as exaggerating the opposing position to absurdity, a very weak form of argument. Please help us focus on content and kindly refrain for mis-stating the status of content. In fact, the article included, before the purge you so passionately defend, the frank admission to our readers that the funding section is necessarily incomplete. This takes absolutely NOTHING away from the results reported by investigative journalism by multiple reliable sources. Every funder and dollar amount listed had at least one reliable source, and almost all had more than one. Every funder and dollar amount available in reliably sourced investigative journalism reports takes on additional prominent significance given the overwhelming dominance in reliable sources of the controversy surrounding the extent of the subject of this article's political activities with respect to its chosen filing status. We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar. Hugh (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I, too, agree that a rollback would be in the best interest of the article. Key material can be carefully returned. This tidal wave change is suboptimal. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Viriditas' edit was justified, nor do I have an opinion on whether rolling it back is best for the article. However, I do have two general comments: the current version of the article doesn't meet the definition of a coatrack. Even if there is too much detail, I don't see how any of it is unrelated to the subject. Perhaps someone can explain how the material is coatrackish. My other comment is that is considerably easier to remove material than it is too add it. - MrX 21:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I take exception with many of the edits made by the above editors, especially the edits of Champaign Supernova, who made this bizarre deletion with the strange edit summary "Need stronger and multiple sources for this assertion". Either the source supports the material or it doesn't. Rather than a rollback, we need editors like Champaign Supernova to stop removing factual information for no good reason. Looking at the source, I'm finding uncontroversial facts based on evidence and no need for what Champaign Supernova calls "stronger and multiple sources for this assertion". What is really going on here is whitewashing, which is a direct violation of NPOV. We don't need "stronger and multiple sources" for uncontested, uncontroversial statements of fact based on evidence reported by NBC News. Contrary to the calls for "rollback", we need to restore all of the material that the editors up above have been removing against the NPOV policy. This isn't rocket science, this is a simple article about a political advocacy group that has gotten heaps of news coverage because of their shenanigans. Whitewashing these shenanigans from vanilla sources like NBC News is indicative of a larger problem by the editors who seem to be defending this political advocacy group in a manner incompatible with our policies. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed. The deletion of content drawn from NBC News is especially egregious in that above on this very talk page at #Summary of alignment of agendas of Americans for Prosperity, Kochs, and Koch Industries you will find a good faith attempt by a collaborator to discuss this very content and source. This editor had a golden opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to policy and guideline, laid out for him. Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, in your comments above, when you refer to "this editor" are you talking about me? When you don't use usernames, it is hard to tell who you are addressing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The only reversion that makes sense for this article would be to prior to the massive, undiscussed content blanking, including the undiscussed section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, and including the undiscussed removal of dozens of well-formatted, reliable source references, performed by Onel5969 on 22 June. This undiscussed blanking removed content workshopped collaboratively by multiple editors over many months of a cooperative good article drive. Any other reversion would reward disruptive editing and, perhaps most significantly, reinforce the misconception of some editors that local consensus may be used to override our neutrality pillar. From a point prior to 22 June, it would be simple matter to invite collaborators, as they have been invited many, many, many times above on this very talk page (I can enumerate them upon request), to identify SPECIFIC items of content, and SPECIFIC policies and guidelines of concern. Hugh (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok so the two editors with an obvious POV are opposed to the rollback. Checks out.

@MrX. There are a lot of examples on the page of COATRACKING. I dont think I need to list them out but here are a few to illustrate:

This is in the lead. This event has ultimately been dismissed. It is certainly undue to put this much emphasis on something that should be at the bottom of the page in a Criticism section.

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.

This portion makes a controversy, that ultimately has been dismissed, as the BULK of the background section.

Transparency

Tax-exempt, non-profit charitable organizations such as AFP are generally not required to disclose their contributors, in contrast with political action committees.[35][42][43][44] Some campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats have criticized AFP for what they perceive to be its funding of political activities from undisclosed sources.[45] For example, the Sunlight Foundation and others have accused non-disclosing political groups like AFP of filing for nonprofit status solely to invoke the right to hide their donors.[46][37] President Obama, speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraising dinner in August 2010, criticized AFP for its political spending and non-disclosure of donors.[15][47][48][49] The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed a complaint with the IRS charging that the AFP Foundation had funded political advertisements in violation of the law applicable to the foundation's tax-exempt classification. AFP responded that the charges were without merit.[50][51]

In 2010 and 2011, AFP reported to the IRS that it was not involved in political activities.[52] Questioned by a reporter before the 2012 Wisconsin recall elections, AFP's Wisconsin director said AFP was educating the public and not engaging in political activity.[53][54][55][56] In 2014, an AFP spokesperson said AFP had the right to keep its donors private, citing NAACP v. Alabama, a 1958 Supreme Court ruling that protected National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) donors from potential harassment.[57] In 2014, AFP president Phillips said that protecting donors' identities was prudent given the Obama administration's ideology-based IRS targeting of citizens.[58][59][60] The AFP Foundation said its supporters have received serious threats. In February 2015, a federal judge granted the Foundation's motion for a preliminary injunction staying California Attorney General Kamala Harris's request for the names and addresses of Foundation donors, pending resolution of the legality of the request.[61][62]

Here why is it stressed that this tax would have funded medical research?

AFP opposed a 2006 cigarette tax hike in Indiana[198] and helped fund the "No on 29" effort in opposition to California Proposition 29 (2012), which would have placed a $1 excise tax on tobacco products to fund smoking medical research and smoking cessation.

The current page is not an improvement from where it had been before. Not saying it was perfect. But its better than it is now. DaltonCastle (talk)

HUGH'S POINT OF VIEW: I am pushing a point of view of fairly representing all significant views in proportion to reliable sources. Thanks for asking. Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the "transparency" section started its life at the very end of the article, and was moved up by another editor, not me. Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What controversy was ultimately dismissed? That you feel a controversy is settled or passed has no bearing on due weight, coverage in reliable sources does, sorry. Hugh (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

"why is it stressed that this tax would have funded medical research" um, because it didn't pass? Hugh (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, and any competent editor should see, two specific examples of WP:COATRACK given. I would say that both the funding and transparency sections are just undue weight. Most sources which are not attack pieces mention neither. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If a source does mention funding or transparency, then it's an attack piece, right? Hugh (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DaltonCastle gave you two specific examples of coatracking in the article Hugh, yet you ask him to be more specific?? Let me reiterate what DaltonCastle has said. For one - the lead section. The quote below, as a previous user has pointed out, should be placed somewhere else in the article to reduce emphasis per WP:UNDUE.

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'm not sure how more specific I can get on this one, but the placement of the quote in the article is WP:COATRACK because, per definition, it "ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects." I hope this clears things up. In my opinion, DaltonCastle's second example is pretty straightforward to any editor who reads it. In regards to your point of view, Hugh, I think it is a good one. However, I don't believe that it is being followed through with -- fairly representing and proportion are two key elements to making this article neutral. I think as a group we need to work on this.

In addition, (for anyone wondering what my definition/understanding of neutrality is), neutrality is being in the state of neither supporting nor helping either side of a conflict or disagreement, aka being impartial. I feel as though this is a pretty healthy understanding of the term. Do I think this article, in it's current state, is neutral? No. That is because when a reader with no knowledge on the subject reads this article, he or she will automatically become biased. As an editor of Wikipedia, I think it is my job to prevent this from happening. We are not here to determine the opinions of others.

Therefore, I support and approve the rollback request. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the passage you quoted is undue, or an example of coatracking. That sentence simply summarizes something that is discussed in more detail - and reliably sourced - within the article body, as the lede should. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are the reasons why I believe the passage is WP:UNDUE. 1.) quantity and 2.) prominence of placement. I’d like to see any other political advocacy page where the subject's tax-exempt status (and funding, which is also being discussed on this talk page) is covered in such depth, let alone in the lead. It is also WP:COATRACKING because the material is biased and applies negative opinions as facts. If we allow this, we are just digging ourselves deeper into an NPOV funding hole on AFP’s page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 13:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explicitly stating your personal opinion that the appropriate level of coverage of the funding of the subject of this article is none. Thank you for citing specific policy in stating your personal opinion. Sorry, but policy does not support the section blanking of the funding section. The criteria in policy implementing our neutrality pillar is quite clear; once again: coverage in our encyclopedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. Coverage of funding is required. Your invocation of a de facto standard established by other articles has no basis in policy or guideline and has no bearing on the current article: no non-profit political advocacy organization has garnered the depth of coverage of their funding as the subject of this article. There is no basis for ignoring the copious reliable sources on the funding of the subject of this article. Summarizing the breadth of significant viewpoints in reliable sources is not coat racking. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"No non-profit political advocacy organization has garnered the depth of coverage of their funding as the subject of this article." Doesn't that seem like a stretch to you? For example this article [21] goes in depth on a number of other political advocacy groups with controversy behind their funding structures (and please don't say this is only one source, read the article and click on the links, trying to avoid WP:TL;DR here). To say that AFP is the only non-profit with controversy surrounding their funding is WP:UNDUE - they are not the only political organization with funding controversy. I think we can agree on that at least, correct? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Template

No one has commented further. I am requesting that this version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&oldid=669806083) be restored, since the editor that made it had no consensus. No one wanted to revert due to the 1RR restrictions and fear of blocking. I recognize that this will not leave the page perfect, but it will be an improvement, and leave it closer to the consensus that had been reached. We can edit it more after that. This is the version that had a majority consensus. I understand this leaves out a minority of editors, but we can address those concerns after the page is restored to a version that was generally more accepted. Reluctant to add verbatim changes since it would be a massive text. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose the proposed rollback - DaltonCastle is requesting the restoration a severely POV (whitewashed) version of this article that is completely inconsistent with NPOV and a very large number of reliable sources. To illustrate, compare the number of times the name "Koch" is mentioned (in the actual article text) of the revision Dalton wants restored to the number of times it appears just in the titles of the references. Also compare that to the how the reliable sources listed here treat the subject, and to how reliable academic sources treat the subject. (those are just some examples, I could cite a lot more if needed). There is no consensus for the proposed rollback, as a quick look at the ongoing discussions on this talk page should make clear. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

references
References

Hi Fyddlestix! This was a consensus from over a month ago, before forum-shopping took place. No one (at least, not I) was saying there should be no mention of the Kochs. But the general consensus was that this kind of weight is not given over at Soros related organizations. Not to mention the Kochs arent even the largest donors here. Stressing this point so much could be construed as WP:COATRACKING by turning the page into an attack page against the organization. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What happens at Soros is irrelevant here, it's an "other stuff exists" argument. Our job here is to ensure that the article reflects what the reliable sources say. Also, I have seen no evidence of a consensus for that revision of the page, despite myself, MrX and others having repeatedly requested that someone point out the discussion where that (alleged) consensus was developed. More to the point: consensus can change, and a consensus from over a month ago does not get to override the discussions that are ongoing on this talk page right now, particularly when new evidence/contributions have been brought to the table since then (they have, by multiple editors). Please take a look at how the actual reliable sources treat this subject, and compare that to revision of the article you're asking to have restored. It should be patently obvious that the due weight problem here is with the revision you're trying to have restored. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, allegations of forum shopping (I assume you're accusing HughD there?) are pretty meaningless when there was an actual problem with the article, which (again, as reliable sources make clear) there obviously was in this case. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you not auto-confirmed? Why the template? Hugh (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never dealt with restoring an older version such as this case before. Would prefer an admin guide us through it. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Reluctant to add verbatim changes since it would be a massive text." Are you sure what are reluctant about isn't presenting your case for your preferred edits? Lay them out for us. Do the heavy lifting of collaborating. Are you sure you are not using a point in time in the edit history because it is easier for you? Put it in writing. Explain to us why the appropriate level of coverage of funding and transparency in this article is none, explain why policy demands we ignore vast tracts of reliable sources, and sign it with your name, please. The ship has sailed on the idea of a revert in combination with the discretionary sanctions. No one is going to swoop in here and do your work for you. Hugh (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you feel someone has forum shopped, you should report them. Hugh (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Again with the consensus. Consensus is important but there are lots of things are more important than consensus around here. One is our neutral point of view pillar. You are asking for someone to swoop in here and endorse your confusion that a local consensus may be used to override our neutral point of view pillar. Hugh (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop these accusations. Ive received them from you plenty already. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

HughD has been reported as canvassing and forum shopping in some appropriate fora. (To do so in other appropriate fora would be, well, forum shopping.) And there was a consensus for the version DaltonCastle suggests (in fact, everyone commenting except Hugh was in favor of the edit and those commenting agreed it was less of a POV violation (if at all) than the version previous. Then Viriditas reverted to a version which everyone except (possibly) Hugh believed to be an even worse POV violation. I think the revert DaltonCastle suggests is a clear improvement on NPOV grounds, but a neutral admin needs to determine consensus. I don't think a neutral admin exists, and, I don't think an "uninvolved" admin would be adequate in this context, unless experienced in "writing for the enemy". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping is a serious problem; if you think someone has forum shopped, please report it. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits on 7/22

I reverted edits made today by Hugh. I am writing this post to justify my reversion of those edits. There is still an outstanding RfC proposed by Hugh for this page, as well as several discussion topics that are still being commented on that relate to several edits made to the page over the span of the last few months. I would like to see the outstanding issues resolved before adding any additional content to the page. If anyone has an comments on this, or issues with my reversion, please feel free to post it here. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A open RfC does not halt improvements. Do you have any specific policy or guideline support for one or more of your reversions? I thought your justification for your reversions at article talk might make some reference to specific policy or guideline and to specific content. Hugh (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted part of the "undoing". I recommend Comatmebro and other editors take a look at WP:OWN, editors do not require your approval whether it's stated explicitly or implicitly through another process in which you're involved, like "Wikiproject X".Scoobydunk (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would support reverting HughD's recent changes as they currently stand but feel an argument can be made to keep the added information. The supporting article is dated almost a full year before the 2012 elections. What is the "biggest" at that point may be insignificant as of October 2012 thus the early date of the article draws the notability of the claim into question. The single sentence Hugh added doesn't make the early nature of the claim clear. That could lead readers to a false conclusion about the relative size of the campaign (WP:SYNTHESIS via inference). An argument for notability can be made if the campaign was still one of the biggest as of election time. That would require a reference dated closer to or after the election. Springee (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I see some merit in this rebuttal. It can easily be solved by qualifying the addition with the date the statement was made in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

At least it gets closer to showing merit. If someone else showed that by the standards later 2012 ad campaigns it wasn't that large (a large wave before the tsunami) then the merit should be questioned. The better solution is to show the size of this campaign vs later ones. If it still stands out then the merit is much stronger. Springee (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The date the stmt was made Jan 2012 was in the deleted & restored content, and is currently in the article, please see. January is what a decade ago most Americans would have considered early in a national election cycle, but thanks in part to the subject of this article, spending on advertising in election cycles at scale is earlier and earlier. The subject of this article's role in election cycles starting earlier and earlier is a significant aspect of its notability. It is a significant aspect of the noteworthiness of the content that The Washington Post noted the scale of the attack a full ten months before election day. It is not an issue with the content it is exactly its significance. Hugh (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The current entry doesn't make it clear why it has merit. Based on the text it appears that the reason for merit is simply the size of the ad campaign "up to that point" without knowing when "that point is". Now it appears that you are arguing the merit is due to this campaign pushing up election cycle spending. I might have missed where the article made that claim. If that is the merit does that belong in this article or in an article about overall campaign spending and the way the campaign season is getting longer? Does that raise issues of coatracking or synthesis? Springee (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"without knowing when "that point is"." The date the statement was made January 2012 is the prefix clause of the sentence. I'm sorry this is not clear to you. Hugh (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, it is a clear sign that you are editing in bad faith to add the date AFTER I made that comment and then reply as if the date were in the article when I made my above post. Furthermore your edit does not address my concerns regarding notability. Formal apology to Hugh for the above. I was the one who missed the Jan 2012 date when I wrote the post time stamped 21:22.Springee (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks, no prob Hugh (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Can either of you clarify how my revert is any different from the revert done by Hugh only July 1st? He stated in his summary, "active talk page thread on neutraity in progress; please do not remove the tag until this issue is resolved, thank you very much." If you had an issue with removing a tag on July 1st because of the discussion going on on the talk page, how does adding more content to the article resolve that issue? You can argue that you are adding "improvements" to the article, but its already been made very clear that every edit you make has to be taken with a grain of salt, and reviewed by every editor that has disagreed with your POV for the last few months. You are simply making more work for everyone at an inappropriate time. You've done a great job in the past, on this article and others, of proposing the content you add in the talk page BEFORE posting it - allowing editors to provide feedback before any additional content is added. Here you did not do that, which is disappointing to say the least. If you'd like a specific policy cited as justification, I will go with WP:DEPE on this one, specifically the section titled "Failure or refusal to "get the point." "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting." These additional edits made by you today are simply a waste of time while we hash out the debates going on on the talk page. Why not propose the addition of this content on the talk page when the RfC and "Request Rollback" sections are done being debated? Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"how my revert is any different" How your revert is different? Really? OK. The 1 July revert restored the NPOV article hat while multiple editors were actively involved in multiple talk page discussion threads regarding neutrality while your recent revert deleted article content and reliable source references. I hope that helps. But why do you ask? Hugh (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is your idea that anyone who adds a NPOV hat to an article may not make improvements to the article? Hugh (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in time traveling, nor correcting every mistake on every article ever written. I am now involved in this article/discussion through the NPOV noticeboard, so that should be enough to clarify my actions since my involvement. Also, your reference to WP:DEPE is not applicable because this is a new piece of information that hasn't gone through a discussion process, to my knowledge. If you can actually show where this piece of information has gone through dispute resolution and a clear consensus was achieved, then I'd certainly reconsider my position. However, if you can't, your reference to WP:Depe amounts to nothing more than "we told you before to get our permission before editing, now stop" which, like I said, can easily be seen as wp:own.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe an editor should be banned from an article, there are processes here for that, but bulk reverting is not it. Hugh (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to wait on adding the content so we can handle one piece of content at a time. The neutrality argument is still going on on the talk page, and the RfC has not yet been closed, so why add more potentially debatable content into the mix? To me it seems less like an attempt to improve the article and more like an attempt to draw other editors into additional content unrelated to the actual issues currently being discussed throughout several different threads on the talk page...which is exactly what this thread is... Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your basis in policy or guideline for your request that all improvements be halted until the RfC closes? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I cited WP:DEPE as my basis in policy or guideline for my request that all improvements be halted until the RfC AND additional disputes (i.e. every threaded discussion that has been commented on in the last five days) are resolved. You've gotten upset in the past that editors did not respond to your comments about specific content added, I am simply asking that you either wait until disputes and the RfC are resolved to add the content, or propse adding the content on the talk page so consensus on the material can be met before it is added to the page. That way, we and other editors don't have to go back and forth reverting each other. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what part of WP:DEPE you believe may be the basis for insisting that all improvements to an article be halted if an RfC is open? Hugh (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A point of clarification for anyone reading this thread: Please note I am arguing that improvements be halted on the article with an open RfC AND unresolved disputes throughout the talk page.

More specificity on my take on WP:DEPE as it relates to your recent edits, and all of your collective edits as a whole on this article (policy guidelines italicized, my comments follow thereafter):

• Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." I think this makes it pretty clear that WP:DEPE does not only pertain to "newly added content" - there is much more going on here than my revert of your edits today and you know that.

• It is essential to recognize patterns of disruptive editing. Our edit warring policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts they constitute a pattern that does violate policy. Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act. Nevertheless, a series of edits over time may form a pattern that seriously disrupts the project. My argument for reverting your edits is that your edits over time have formed a pattern of disruptiveness - that doesn't necessarily mean your edits are bad, or not done in good faith, rather that a more cautious approach needs to be taken by you, an experienced editor of wikipedia, when you are attempting to add new information to this page.

• Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption is grounds for blocking, and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either through the Arbitration Committee or by a consensus. I supported this guideline when I stated earlier, "To me it seems less like an attempt to improve the article and more like an attempt to draw other editors into additional content unrelated to the actual issues currently being discussed throughout several different threads on the talk page...which is exactly what this thread is..."

• Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive. You've been accused of edit warring on this page in the past, while your edits may be in good faith, your overall pattern of edits is disruptive.

• Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article. This goes towards your whole "kill them with kindness" attitude that several editors have commented on in prior posts on this talk page.

I hope that is sufficient! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what part of WP:DEPE you believe may justify your insistance that all improvements to an article be halted if an RfC is open? Hugh (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I just did that...I am not arguing that improvements to this article by all editors be halted, I am simply asking that YOU specifically hold off on additional edits until content disputes and the RfC that you are involved in are resolved on the talk page.That way, we can deal with one issue at a time instead of bouncing around between all of these different threaded discussions. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe an editor is disruptive and should have edit restrictions, there is a process for that here, please report them; but if you won't, please understand that reverting that editor's edits is not the way to go. Hugh (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk Could you clarify the following for me? "Your reference to WP:DEPE is not applicable because this is a new piece of information that hasn't gone through a discussion process, to my knowledge." I am reading and re-reading DEPE and can't find anything that states the policy is only applicable to "new pieces of information added to an article." The way i interpret the first sentence of the policy is that it applies to an article, edits, and comments as a whole. You also noted that no discussion has taken place yet, therefore WP:DEPE cannot apply, The whole reason for posting this thread and reverting the edits was to say "hey, I appreciate these edits, but can we maybe wait a little bit to start adding more stuff so we can discuss this in more detail?" You're right, i cannot show you where this content went through dispute resolution because one has not been created yet. There are several other outstandingg disputes that need to be resolved before adding another into the mix, IMO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

comatmebro WP:DEPE says "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." This is what WP:DEPE speaks to and no where has the information the Hugh just added to the article been a part of a previous consensus. So Hugh is not violating/ignoring a previous consensus when he adds entirely new information unrelated to other disputes to the article. There, WP:DEPE does not apply. You can interpret anything how you want, but that doesn't change what the policy says and/or what the meaning of words. Furthermore, I didn't argue that WP:DEPE was "only applicable to 'new pieces of information added to an article.'" So this is a strawman argument because I claimed the opposite of that, which is true. WP:DEPE pertains to a consensus that has already been made that someone continuously ignores, and you just admitted that there was no consensus for the information Hugh just added, that you removed. I'd also like to take this moment to address the fact that you just implicitly accused Hugh of disruptive editing for adding a new piece of reliably sourced information to a WP article that didn't violate a previous consensus. I'd advise against this approach because it can easily be seen as bad faith. Lastly, "No" those other disputes don't need to be "resolved" before adding completely unrelated information to the article. It actually doesn't even need to be resolved before adding in the disputed information, but that can be seen as disruptive if the person is ignoring discussion and continuing ahead with action. So far, Hugh hasn't demonstrated ignoring any of the numerous of discussions that he's been engaged in.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I understand what you are saying and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. The one thing I will say about your argument here is that at no point in time do you address my comments about Hugh's cumulative behavior on this article and his comments on the talk page - the WP:DEPE guidelines that states "Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive" is also never address in your response, and in all honesty it is the focal point of my argument here. If you want to switch my argument around and try to make content specific thats fine. I think you know what I am trying to articulate here, and maybe I've simply come up short in my citation of specific policies and guidelines of wikipedia. All that I am asking is that we hold off on adding new content to the article until the content already being discussed on the talk page is taken care of. Again, I politely ask that we handle one piece of content at a time so that all editors can wrap their brains around everything that is going on with the recent edits made to this article, and the several discussions topics still going on on the talk page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please consider your request denied with this comment. Please take your request to an appropriate forum for pursuing edit restrictions. Please stop discussing editor behaviour on an article talk page. This article talk page is for specific discussions of article content with respect to specific policy and guideline. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Hugh. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I did address your comments about Hugh's cumulative behavior and told you that it can easily be seen as "bad faith". That comment wasn't restricted to this most recent edit that you reverted, but to the fact that, in general, you're calling his editing disruptive. The WP:DEPE policy only mentions that to clarify how continuously editing against consensus can be disruptive, it does not speak to disruptive behavior overall. Furthermore, I needn't address his behavior overall because it's a red herring argument, which is disruptive to the improvement of an article. His behavior is not relevant to the fact that this most recent edit is substantiated by a reliable source and is relevant to article and section at hand.

I will say that I don't agree with all of Hugh's edits. The very first one I saw on the NPOV noticeboard was one regarding adding information about the size of Koch Industries, which I think does borderline on WP:COATRACK and doesn't merit inclusion. However, the bigger offense I see plainly evident is that a group of editors are clearly stonewalling the addition of relevant information that is reliably sourced. This group cites consensus, but can't supply any diff to a dispute resolution consensus and keeps spouting WP policies that clearly don't substantiate their objections. Scoobydunk (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you have made a conscious effort to prove that the material added is relevant and comes from a reliable source, and I appreciate that. I will drop the WP:STICK (for now) on this. In the past Hugh would propose content on the talk page first, allowing editors to dig into the relevant info and comment on it before it was added to the page. With everything going on on the talk page, I was hoping we could try and do the same thing for content moving forward. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Climate change organization ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the consensus. A group that deals with climate change as part of a broader agenda on energy and/or the environment can be fairly labeled as a climate change group, since climate change is a huge part of broader policy debates on energy and the environment. A group that deals with climate change as one of many parts of a much broader agenda that goes way beyond energy and the environment cannot neutrally be labeled a climate change group absent reliable sourcing explicitly to the contrary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)