Talk:American Accountability Foundation

objective: destroy the government

https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/the-slime-machine-targeting-dozens-of-biden-nominees quotes Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and Trump critic at the American Enterprise Institute, as saying, “It’s tough enough to get top-flight people in government but, if you also have to go through a well-funded, well-oiled slime machine, it’s really an attack on government.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.220.134 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the American Accountability Foundation claimed that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez violated rules of the United States Congress by attending the Met Gala? Source: “ A conservative watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday, claiming she violated congressional rules by attending the high-priced event.

'There are serious questions about whether or not her ticket — donated or purchased with campaign funds — was permissible under the code of congressional ethics,' said The American Accountability Foundation in a statement."

NBC News

• • ALT1:... that the American Accountability Foundation criticized American congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for attending the Met Gala?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes zu Eltz
  • Comment: It would be nice to run this on the 2nd of May, the same day as the actual Met Gala.

Created by Thriley (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 03:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC).

• Earwig says there is some close paraphrasing - it should get cleaned up. --evrik ^(talk) 02:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Evrik: It looks like Earwig is picking up the descriptive quotes. I changed the wording at the beginning of one sentence, but everything else looks fine to me. Thriley (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n
• Other problems: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: It seems like the hooks are unmerited and somewhat biased. --evrik ^(talk) 03:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I suggest:

• ALT2:... that the American Accountability Foundation aims to "take a big handful of sand and throw it in the gears of the Biden administration"?

--evrik ^(talk) 03:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think there's a way to use the Met Gala critique? I tried to make ALT1 pretty light and without malice. Thriley (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm signing off for the night. I'll think about it, but it seems that the AOC link is unmerited. --evrik ^(talk) 03:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Why unmerited? It has been written about in several sources. Since the Met Gala is next Monday I thought readers would find it interesting. Thriley (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole purpose of this organization is to tar their political opponents. What is said may be accurately true, they did make accusations; however, there is no evidence that the charges were upheld. --evrik ^(talk) 04:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This is why I used the word "criticized". Is that not ok? Is there a way to phrase it better? Thriley (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that DYK hooks have little room for context, and giving it makes this hook boring; "right wing action group criticizes AOC" is, y'know, same as it ever was, but "American Accountability Foundation criticizes AOC" sounds like she got a slap from a legitimately fairness-interested organization. I don't think that link has much interestingness value, honestly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that the dark money American Accountability Foundation, which has tried to derail the nominations of 29 appointees to the Joe Biden administration, criticized Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for attending the Met Gala? Thriley (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• ALT3a: ... that the dark money American Accountability Foundation, has tried to derail the nominations of 29 appointees to the Joe Biden administration?
• ALT4: ... that the American Accountability Foundation, has tried to derail the nominations of 29 appointees to the Joe Biden administration?

A couple more. --evrik ^(talk) 17:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Is there an estimate of the amount of money that they have raised? What about a hook like “that the AAF, a conservative dark money group which raised x million dollars in 2021, criticized the ethics of AOC for attending the Met Gala?” I can’t do editing until later. Any help finding a mention of their money would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• Someone else want to weigh in on the hooks? --evrik ^(talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not find much neutrality in the article. The use of the New Yorker article which states: "The A.A.F., which is run by conservative white men, has particularly focussed on blocking women and people of color. As of last month, more than a third of the twenty-nine candidates it had publicly attacked were people of color, and nearly sixty per cent were women." My problem with using this as a standalone reference is this: If Biden is mainly nominating women and people of color, wouldn't it stand to reason that the AAF was just opposing them on principal and not because of their sex or color? For instance this article put out by the Brennan Center for Justice, "To date, Pres­id­ent Biden has nomin­ated the most demo­graph­ic­ally diverse set of judi­cial candid­ates in history, includ­ing the first LGBTQ woman to serve on a court of appeals, the first Muslim Amer­ican to serve as a federal judge, and the first Black woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Twenty-six percent of all Black women currently serving as active judges were nomin­ated by Pres­id­ent Biden." Choosing an ALT, I would say ALT4 is best, but that part of the article needs to be qualified in the article first. I would like to see more neutrality in the article prior to promotion. Bruxton (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see this group as part of the movement that began among Republicans during the Obama presidency. Instead of participating in the normal political process, Republicans would rather break down the the ability of the opposition to govern and use dark money groups to tar them. To call this group race-based would not be accurate. I would think they would have been very happy if someone just like Clarence Thomas was nominated instead of Jackson. Thriley (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Bruxton and Thriley: Do you want to add a paragraph to add balance? --evrik ^(talk) 19:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Someone else want to weigh in on the hooks? --evrik ^(talk) 19:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps a different word other than "derail"? I'm also wondering if it should be mentioned that the group is a "conservative opposition research group" but I feel that could violate the "focuses unduly on negative aspects" guideline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• I liked the sand throwing quote. Perhaps:

ALT5:... that the dark money American Accountability Foundation aims to "take a big handful of sand and throw it in the gears of the Biden administration"? Thriley (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• I like Alt 5. @Thriley: I still see some paraphrasing issues. --evrik ^(talk) 17:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping to @Thriley: to get this moving and get the paraphrasing issues fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m only seeing quotes and proper names being picked up by Earwig. Looks fine to me. Thriley (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Alt 5 approved--evrik ^(talk)