Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:15, 7 February 2011

Organizations Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Creation reasons

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

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

Xenodata 01:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-partisan?

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

Non-partisan doesn't mean non-ideological. It doesn't even mean that the groups opinions are somehow equidistant between the major parties or political groups in a country. It just means it has no connection to political parties, doesn't endorse or support parties, either doesn't endorse political candidates or its endorsements aren't exclusive to a specific party or parties. twfowler (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right! I bet they don't exclusively endorse GOP candidates and causes. If it stomps like an elephant, has hooves and a trunk, it's gray.....then it's an elephant. "Americans for Prosperity" is definitely partisan. Just because they claim not to be doesn't make it so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.69.130 * - non sequitur note: elephants have padded feet, not hooves, although at the WWF website they call each toe/toenail unit a hoof.(talk) 08:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically when people hear "non partisan" they assume an entity with no ideological bias. AFP has always shown a conservative bias. And furthermore, if they are non-partisan, I ask you this: what Democratic agenda have they supported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.123.69 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

= Check sourcewatch

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

tags added

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

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

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

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

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

Zernike

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

Well, actually, it does, but it doesn't tie it to David Koch, and it damages the effect of the criticisms of the New Yorker article, following. If included, it needs to be in a separate sentence following the criticisms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It also doesn't support those claims of what the AFP does; it supports different claims. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you add text that is closer to the source?   Will Beback  talk  07:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that better? I should add something about what she says about the purpose, but that should be in another section, I believe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why were these references removed?

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

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

The reliability (and bias) is disputed, and is unnecessary, as the LA Times article (at least appears) to be an attempt at news coverage, rather than political commentary, so seems adequate to support statements made in the article. The LA Times was also used to support other statements. Finally, I question whether the lede needs references for statements not supported in the body. Mayer and Zernike were not used in the body, while the LA Times article is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles