Talk:American Council for Capital Formation

some suggested corrections

I've tried to offer a few corrections and further development to this article; I'll be glad to discuss any of it if it seems like I've stepped out of line. I'll try to list my changes here point by point in case any of them are controversial. Is there anyone active here right now that would like to collaborate?

• I've added citations for quotations that didn't have them where I could.

• I've expanded existing citations into fuller forms wherever possible instead of unlabeled links.

• I've added links and full names for various political figures and organizations.

• I've expanded the opening paragraphs to try to summarize the article better (it seemed very short).

• I replaced "right-wing" in the title, which had no source, with "free-market", which is how the nonpartisan newspaper The Hill describes the ACCF. This seems both more neutral and more specific. (The ACCF doesn't seem to advocate right-wing positions on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, or school prayer, for example, so just describing them as generally "right-wing" isn't as helpful as the more specific phrase.) Another alternative might be "pro-business", which is what the Alaska Dispatch News calls them in their citation.

• The group is not actually located on K Street (though they are near K Street). I corrected this error by saying Connecticut Ave for now, but if somebody wanted to write "in the K Street neighborhood" or "near K Street" or something, that seems fine also. I realize the intent here is to indicate that they're from a common lobbying neighborhood.

• I added the group's overall policy statement about climate change to the top of the climate change section. Their general policy statement seems more important than, for example, Banks' individual statement on coal plants (though I left this too).

• I've marked a few things that I couldn't find in the given sources or that had no sources with "citation needed" tags. I'll try to help find citations for these and remove them otherwise.

• I Googled for the quotation from Banks to the oil industry and found a source for it, but I'm a little confused why this is in the article. He wasn't working for the ACCF at the time--is this important here? It seems like it would be a better fit for an article specifically about him.

• I couldn't find a source that ACCF relies "heavily" on oil money. The oil contributions are obviously substantial, but it's not clear to me looking at these sources how much this contributes to the ACCF's overall operating budget--sorry if I'm overlooking it. Alaska Dispatch News uses the phrase "A pro-business think tank supported partly by ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips", so I've adjusted the phrasing here to match. Does it seem reasonable to follow this source on this one?

• I've revised the phrase "Greenpeace documented" to "Greenpeace stated". I don't see any documentation on Greenpeace's site; they just state a number, so "documented" may be a little strong here.

I hope this is a useful contribution... I'll be glad to discuss any of it further. More soon, Ellen. EllenMcGill (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

lead section

Hi, thanks for the thanks about the edits! I'm a little confused why "free-market" was changed back to "conservative" without a source being given. Is it possible to discuss what sources that's coming from?

As I mentioned above, the two independent sources I've found gave a one-word description called the think tank "free-market" or "pro-business" (as a leading Capitol Hill publication, The Hill seems like a particularly good guide for this). "Free-market" also seems like a more useful descriptor as a specific subset of conservative thought. There's no question that they're conservative on most economic issues, but that's not quite the same as endorsing the general conservative agenda, which also includes a lot of social issues that the ACCF doesn't appear to have a stand on. They could just as easily be called "libertarian" (though since this also implies stands on social issues, that's not quite accurate either).

Here's what I can find through a quick Google search of "ACCF" in various newspapers.

• "The American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), a D.C.-based free market group," The Hill: [1] and [2]
• "a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to public policies supportive of saving and investment to promote long-term economic growth, job creation and competitiveness." The Hill [3] --this is how they describe the ACCF in a blurb for an opinion piece, so this may not count.
• "business group" New York Times: [4]
• "a Washington group that lobbies for lower corporate taxes." NYT [5]
• "a business-financed group that lobbies for tax cuts." NYT [6]
• "the free-market American Council for Capital Formation" Washington Post: [7]
• "a research and advocacy organization pressing for tax policies favorable to corporate interests." Washington Post: [8]

Sorry if this is overkill, you've got me interested now! I did find one reference to them as a conservative think tank in a small Politico blurb: [9] So I don't mean to suggest nobody has ever described them this way. But if "free market" is good enough for the Washington Post and the Hill, probably the two most respected Washington publications, surely it's good enough for Wikipedia also? I'll change this back for now, but am happy to discuss further. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe expand some?

Doing that quick Google search got me thinking. There seems to be a lot of information out there about the ACCF, and it seems rather wrong to take the group's entire "History" section only from Sidney Blumenthal, a Democratic fundraiser and Clinton family friend. It's kind of like relying only on Karl Rove to write the history of Greenpeace or the ACLU, and there's moments where it seems to me to shade into Blumenthal's subjective opinion. Would anyone object if I tried to expand this section from sources like the New York Times and Washington Post, so that it doesn't solely rely on an explicitly partisan source? -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Need for sources

In this edit the edit summary said "Unless I misunderstand, Wikipedia requires sources, especially when writing about living people..." That is not quite correct. Wikipedia requires sources for content that has been or is likely to be challenged, including any highly unusual or surprising claims or statements. It requires in text attribution backed with a citation for direct quotes or closely paraphrased content. It requires citations for contentious or potentially defamatory statements about living people. It encourages additional citations that might assist the reader or help support the article, although not to excess You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. These requirements are spelled out in Verifiablity, WP:CITE, and WP:BLP. Saying that someone expresses pleasure in having important people attend his gatherings doesn't seem particularly controversial. If it is challenged, it should be sourced or removed, but it shouldn't really be challenged unless the challenger honestly thinks it is incorrect or doubts its accuracy. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify a clarification: Wikipedia requires in-line citation for content that has been or is likely to be challenged. At the same time it requires that all content is verifiable. Quoting: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Gab4gab (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses; I really appreciate both of you looking in. My primary concern here was actually the "openly" part of "he openly expresses pleasure", which to me implied that it was some form of wrongdoing (hence my challenge to it in the first place). But overall I think this article could make better use of the many existing sources about this group; until it does, it seems a little weird to let editors make stuff up like "Well, I assume he'd probably express pleasure about this..." EllenMcGill (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"claimed"

This always strikes me as a loaded word, and Googling "Wikipedia style claim" found me this page in the Manual of Style: "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." I've replaced "claimed" with the more neutral "argued" for now, especially since none of Blumenthal or Kuttner's statements have a "claimed" attached. Please let me know if there are any objections or a rationale I'm not seeing. Thanks, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

History

I've reworked the history section a bit so that it doesn't rely solely on Democratic Party bigwig Sidney Blumenthal. Reading several sources about the 1978 Revenue Act, I don't think it's a fair statement to say that the ACCF were the sole movers behind the Act. Even a hostile author like Robert Kuttner argues that the act passed because it was widely popular with taxpayers and both parties, forcing Carter to back down (see the citation). I've tried to leave Blumenthal's take on things largely intact, but to include other opinions as well. At one point, I've more explicitly identified Blumenthal's economic analysis as his own, rather than "the voice of Wikipedia".

One thing I struggled with here is how partisanship of various authors and figures should be labeled. It seems like if Republican voices in the section (Laffner, Gray) are going to be identified in a partisan/ideological way, left-wing figures in the section like Kuttner and Blumenthal should be as well. For now I labelled Kuttner (who most readers won't be familiar with) but not Blumenthal (who many readers of an article like this would recognize). But I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policy about this, and would be happy to talk about what's the fairest way to do that. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Blumenthal?

It looks to me like the Sidney Blumenthal source that previously formed the backbone of the history section here was copied into the article almost word-for-word. The relevant page is here if anyone wants to compare. Some is straight up cut and paste, some is close paraphrasing. If I'm reading Wikipedia:Plagiarism right, neither is allowed. I'm going to try to remove all the offending text and double-check this user (LesbianAdvocate)'s other contributions to the article. If I'm wrong about any of this, please just let me know! Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, in today's rewrites, I tried to remove all plagiarized material. I also rewrote a few sections for neutrality, and moved information unrelated to the ACCF to other articles or deleted it. (There was quite a bit about Charls Walker's personal history, for example, that had bizarrely been added here instead of his own article.) So Banks' environmental awards went, jokes about Walker's personality, Bloomfield's previous positions, etc. There were also a few places where the sources seemed radically overstated... saying the council "heavily pushed" for something, for example, where the source only says that one ACCF economist made a statement about it.

I think the result is a tighter, more neutral article, but I'm glad to discuss any changes further. I will be the first to admit I'm still learning my way around some of these policies. Thanks everybody who's been working on this with me, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You cannot add editorial comment such as "Democratic activist" Sidney Blumenthal. Your edits violated so many rules I don't even know where to start. An another note, stop POV pushing. If you keep it up you will get blocked for disruptive editing.Lesbianadvocate (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your being willing to talk even in this small way, but while I'm sure my own edits aren't perfect, I don't think I'm the one who's disruptively editing here. You've reverted this article over and over again without being willing to talk. You're adding unsourced, plagiarized, and downright false material to the article, and when I've tried to discuss these things many times (see: this entire page), you've refused any substantive discussion of your actions. You're the one who was reprimanded by the BLP board for your edits here, not me. I've notified the Administrator's board about your actions, so let's just let them sort out who's "POV pushing" here. If it's me, I will happily apologize, but I'll be surprised if you turn out to be the Absolute Judge of Wikipedia you claim to be.

So instead of threats and yelling and constant reverts, maybe we could start discussing the best way to make this article as good as it could be? I'd appreciate it if you could start responding to some of the many posts I've left on this page to try to discuss issues with the article. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FP1 Strategies

I think it's extremely likely that this article, in its original form, was a hit piece by a digital PR firm called FP1 Strategies. One of their executives criticized the ACCF on Twitter the same day this article was created, and the account that created this article has edited almost nothing but individuals and companies on FP1's client list (and their opponents).

I believe I've brought this article to neutrality or something close to it, but since it still includes a lot of material written by the probable FP1 attack account. Another editor may wish to double-check it.

Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

IP address adding minor false information

Well, not even 24 hours after the previous sockpuppet ring hired by Washington PR firm FP1 Strategies was banned from Wikipedia, an IP from the Washington metro area shows up to add some minor false information to the article (in the middle of a blizzard of junk edits).

Propublica's summary of the ACCF's tax filing category (501c6) is not the group's "motto" in any sense of the word "motto", and it's not really a good statement of "purpose" unless the writer intends to add this "purpose" to the databox of every 501c6 organization (which, Googling, includes everyone from real estate boards to the NFL). The IP also added a citation to two sentences about the 1978 tax bill, but I can't find any mention of the 1978 tax bill in either—it seems to be an ACCF executive discussing his proposal to reform the 2016 tax code, so that's off by about 40 years. Lastly, the IP linked the reference to ACCF working with "environmental groups" to Radical environmentalism. I see no evidence that the ACCF is teaming up with a group like ELF here (nor does it seem likely!).

It all adds up to another round of subtle smear attempts. I've therefore reversed most of these changes, including some of the obviously junk edits like linking "journalist" or "president". EllenMcGill (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem like a super fun person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.112.114.143 (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)