Talk:Astroturfing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is a great article

i remember when wal-mart was trying to move into town. only after i had read about their PR company astroturfing did it make sense to me:

hundreds of pro-walmart people showed up at the city council meeting. people out the door were handing out 'i support walmart' stickers.

(written by 199.245.163.1)

a fine article. some historical examples would be nice. High on a tree 02:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Initial Reaction

the minute I saw this page . . .

I thought of WalMart, and I go to talk and what do I see?

Regarding the Historical section of the article, It is a slippery slope to describe ward bosses as astroturf, how do you distinguish between an evil ward boss and a true grassroots community leader?

--LegCircus 03:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Liddy/NYT

Been trying, unsuccessfully, to find documented evidence for the Gordon Liddy/CRP letter campaign to the New York Times. Replaced with a case documented in All the President's Men, but it's weaker. Any help on the Liddy case would be good.

(written by 81.178.79.19) January 14 2005

Bias?

The examples in this article are exclusively anti-Republican, which introduces POV because astroturfing is well-documented in both US political parties. In the last presidential election, pundits of both persuasions (primarily those leaning left) credited Bush's re-election to the fact that most Republican campaign operatives were volunteers (grassroots), while most Democrat campaign operatives were paid (astroturf), described as follows in a Washington Post article:

Bush's organization may have been the more cohesive and coordinated. It included 85,000 volunteers -- nearly four times the number in 2000 -- that concentrated on what Paduchik called "volunteer to voter" contact. Among other efforts, Bush volunteers held thousands of "parties for the president," in which people were invited by their neighbors to hear about Bush's record and policies.

Kerry's effort was large but balkanized. It included the Democratic Party's own campaign workers, plus labor union members and other nominally independent groups called 527s (named for the portion of the federal tax code they are organized under). One of the largest of these groups was America Coming Together, which organized thousands of paid workers to register voters and knock on doors. ACT, which was started with seed money from billionaire George Soros, spent more money in Ohio than any other state, according to campaign finance records.

To help offset the anti-Republican bias, another good example of Democrat astroturfing would be the seminar caller phenomenon on talk radio, where the same talking points from the DNC fax and email lists are often parroted by callers to radio talk shows. Several alert talk show hosts try to combat them by having a set of all the party memos and begin reading them along with the seminar caller to expose them as plants.

(written by 70.179.158.84)

Well then, don't just tell us about it here--be bold and add it to the page yourself. Be sure to document any claims you make, though, or they will probably be reverted. --Paul 03:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

McCain-Feingold

This seems to be a good example, with a confession and some drama: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006449 http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17487 .

This is about the passing of a law that regulates campaign contributions, and that somehows benefits the mainstream media and the liberals.

Since I really don't know much about American politics (not being american), I leave it to someone else to double check it and add it to the article.

Astroturfing on Talk:Astroturfing?

Probably not, but I don't like to see unsigned contributions on Talk pages. I have refactored this page to include IPs of users not logged in, and to simplify and regularize the page structure.

Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you. — Xiong (talk) 21:31, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Merge from Astroturf PR

Hi, I just merged in two examples from another article on the subject. What I didn't bring in was this:

In early 2003, what some people consider to be deceptive form letters emanating from the Republican National Committee caused a scandal. Newspapers from Cape Cod to Hawaii were printing identical letters, all signed by local home-town people. The people signing the letters were real Republicans, but many editors and readers felt it was a sneaky way to publish Republican ads without paying for them or acknowledging where they came from. The Republicans claimed they were just helping their members express themselves.

I wondered if this is documented enough. Actual people signing their own name to a form letter and sending it in does not qualify as astroturfing, does it? Sympleko 12:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not the same incident, but last year ABC's Media Watch had the story of a US national guardsman sending a letter home, which was reprinted in several newspapers. It's apparently been confirmed that he wrote the letter, sent it to many friends and family, and gave instructions to send it on to others. Media Watch does a good job of dissecting the statements. Not quite astroturfing, but it's the closest example I can source at the moment. Imroy 07:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV term?

"The term astroturfing pejoratively describes ..."
I am wondering if there is a non-pejorative term to describe such organizations in a factual way. An example is the Center for Consumer Freedom, which has been tagged as POV by some editors who don't like the term front group. I actually believe that the term "astroturfing" describes the reality better, but if it is only or primarily used pejoratively then it will even face bigger opposition from the (astroturfing?) "Consumer Freedom" lobby. Common Man 09:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Astroturfing" and "front group" are both pejorative terms, with separate meanings. Astroturfing refers specifically to activities of "fake grassroots" groups. Since CCF doesn't take part in these activities (as far as we know), it would be opinionated and inaccurate to accuse them of astroturfing. Astroturfing is a specific activity - organizing meetings, sending letters to local newspapers, setting up surreptitious web sites, participating in message boards.

The use of either term, "astroturfing" or "front group", requires a qualifier in this encyclopedia. You could say something like "Group X has been accused of astroturfing by Group Y", assuming that this accusation has in fact been made. But it is a violation of NPOV to state that "Group X is an astroturfing group". Wikipedia does not make value judgments.

I also resent your suggestion that anyone who opposes the term "front group" must be working for CCF. Please maintain a certain level of maturity, and recognize that many of us simply want to write neutral encyclopedia articles, as opposed to attack pieces. I am currently defending Council on American-Islamic Relations from a similar type of bias on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Before you accuse me of bias you may want to check that dispute out. Rhobite 19:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The merits of your example aside, I don't think there's any way to refer to astroturfing groups without the suspicion of POV rearing its ugly head. Astroturfing is inherently a Bad Thing, after all. Pointing out that, say, Tech Central Station or the "Alexis de Tocqueville Institute" (golly!) are really astroturf-for-hire fronts will not irritate people beause you used the word "astroturf"; rather, the problem is that you accused them of being such in the first place. Sometimes POV/NPOV disputes resemble the "truth vs balance" argument in journalism.--fuddlemark 06:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Justify astroturf in Canada section

I just temporarily removed the "Astroturfing in Canada" section. Someone needs to put in specific examples from Canadian politics and back it up with references. It was just a blanket statement that "astroturfing also occurs in Canada at federal and provincial level..." --220.245.178.132 00:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the point of astroturf is that it shouldn't be documented. However, I have worked on provincial campaigns in Canada and we did astroturf. Jared s 22 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Swift Boat Veterans etc...

I was surprised to see the Swift Boat campaign not mentioned here. I supposed it might have been put in and then removed by US partisans for its slant. But in retrospect it was one of the most successful astroturfing campaigns ever, and deserves mention. Karl Rove fans who don't want it mentioned should simply add in an appropriate example of Dem astroturfing to counterbalance. Right?

Unsigned comment by 213.80.84.98 19:01, 20 February 2006

please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end. Do you have an example of someone calling this Astroturfing? Are there any good records of fake letters in the media? Mozzerati 09:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it was a supposedly "grassroots" group that was actually organized and funded by political operatives of the President makes it the definition of astroturfing. 71.203.209.0 14:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Swift Boat Vets" was not Astroturfing. As far as I know, all of the people who claimed to be Swift Boat Vets in fact were. There was no deception about who the Swift Boat Vets were. There was only dispute about whether their recollections of Kerry's actions during his brief service in Vietnam were accurate. 165.247.3.251 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to consider the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth character assassins and defamers instead then?

67.190.1.182 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" was a supposedly grassroots group that was, in fact, funded by Karl Rove. That would be astroturfing according to the definition.

TheUniverseHatesMe 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• So it should be simple to find a reliable source using the term "astroturfing" to refer to them. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Here. [1] The article is about a nominally different group from the Swift Vets, but it's the same people. Once again pretending to be a grassroots group while actually being an RNC front. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kristallnacht

The Nazi Germany Kristallnacht riots sound like astroturfing to me. The spontaneous rioters were actually Nazi SS officers

Unsigned comment by 70.58.87.142 03:23, 25 March 2006

please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end.

I don't think all cases where the cause of an event are hidden as in Kristallnacht are astroturfing. It is specifically related to media manipulation. I'm going to remove this from the examples, though it might be appropriate in a section on associated and similar phenomena. Mozzerati 09:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Emotional Hijacking

People are very suggestible, but marketers and propagandists have found that when a central core emotion is touched, creating a link between the person and the message, they accept it very readily. A figure in a crowd, whispering "We're both Christians, and he's right, you know!" I call it emotional hijacking. Not being a marketer, and frankly, suspicious of atroturfing, hijacking of people's herd mentality, etc., is there a more formal description of this with respect to astroturfing of true grassroots movements? --UB.

Uncle Bucky

Wag the Dog

Wouldn't Wag the Dog be more propaganda than astroturfing? Andjam 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

yes at least from the reviews I have seen.Mozzerati 09:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The "throwing shoes" was an example of astroturfing. ChristinaDunigan 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

Also questioning about bias, as any astroturfing group would deny the charge. Linking to specific groups is tantamount to a charge that the group would deny. A better method may be to name a few contemporary organizations that have been charged with astroturfing, both on the Left and Right, and sketch the arguments for and against.

I think this should be tagged for POV.

Unsigned comment by OctaviusIII 07:05, 14 May 2006

please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end.

POV doesn't mean that someone would disagree with this article it's more like the article presents only one pont of view and fails to make that clear. It's typically something that should only be applied to an article where a) the POV parts have been identified and b) attempts to fix that have failed. If an article clearly identifies who holds what view (e.g. with clear attribution) then it probably doesn't fall under POV. If you feel that there is POV here, please clearly state where, propose changes (on this talk page), try to carry them out (or whatever the consensus is) and then, if that fails a POV tag may be approporiate whilst some kind of dispute resolution is carried on (this may take a long time).

For now I have put in citation requests. Later you can move the comments to the talk page. Mozzerati 09:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rigorousness of definition and examples

I don't believe that something such as Milosevic reading letters by 'concerned citizens' on radio qualifies as astroturfing, for two reasons:

a) there is no evidence one way or t'other if they were genuine letters. Given that your average president receives thousands of letters a week, it's more likely to have been cherry-picking; and

b) the president, unabashedly in the guise of the president, was reading them and then basking in the glory of them.

The weakness in the Soviet Union example is also apparent: if you tell the public what to think (not covertly, just through the normal processes of government), enough of them will think it to write letters to the editor saying what you want to hear. You then publish those absolutely genuine letters for your own ends. This is not astroturfing. The story of one of the last of these (anti-Gorbachev) letters, the publication of which became a flashpoint for fighting between the pro- and anti-reform factions in the Soviet administration, is detailed in David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb. Remnick went to the trouble of meeting the letter-writer, who was a non-nomenklatura member of the public and actually held the views she expressed.

The point is that without rigorousness in selecting examples, astroturfing spreads beyond its definition, and simply becomes a synonym for 'propaganda' or (worse) 'politicking'. The thing that distinguishes it from any propaganda, or any politician looking to bolster their decisions by saying 'many concerned citizens have contacted me/there is a large swell of community feeling on this issue', is (in my view) that it is material presented directly to the uninformed consumer as coming from an uninterested member of the public at large, when it is not. It is the (to use a loaded term) fraud on the public as to the identity of the origin of the material, that is the essence of astroturfing.

On a slightly different topic, I think that things like iDon't, while a related phenomena, are better described as 'viral marketing' than astroturfing. Viral marketing (lazy definition: marketing that doesn't appear to be marketing) sites and campaigns are a dime a dozen at the moment. iDon't may be slightly different in that it purports to be against something rather than just (as is common) saying 'we established this site to let kids express themselves and be free'; but absent an overtly political message, I still doubt if it's astroturfing.

I've not been presumptuous enough to delete from the article, but I think that for the reasons I've set out, existing examples need to be culled, and future examples need to be selected carefully.203.3.176.10 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reports of foreign riots

Many anti-Western (non-democratic) countries have "riots" or demonstrations against US or UK policies, which are cited uncritically in articles which hint or insinuate that these are grassroots, spontaneous expressions of public opinion. But do we in the West report ALL such demonstrations, or just the anti-Western ones? Or do we only notice anti-Western ones because those are the only ones allowed in such countries? --Wing Nut 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

PCRM

The PCRM are a PETA front group and are hardly a grassroots organization.--Rotten 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a forum for you to vent your frustrations on groups you disagree with. Find a reliable third party making those accusation of astrosurfings. Until then, you're breaking no original research, reliable sources and obviously, neutral point of view. Jean-Philippe 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I did. You are venting your frustrations, sir.--Rotten 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You just re-inserted the same press release by the Consumer for Consumer Freedom, a lobby group for the junkfood industry, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article. Take your smear campaign elsewhere. Jean-Philippe 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The CCF isn't even an astroturfing organization if it purports to be a coalition comprised of industries. The PCRM is a phoney organization comprised of looneytoons rather than actual physicians and anyone with any brains knows this. I'll take both paragraphs out of there, but not one or the other. Wikipedia doesn't need phoney, illiterate animal rights groups cramming their agendas down the throats of it's readers. I'm deleting both paragraphs (it's either both or none).--Rotten 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you're going to try and argue the Washington Post isn't a reliable reference? You'll save us both from wasting our time if you stop that nonsense. Jean-Philippe 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How can it be an astroturfing org when it admits it's comprised of industry groups?--Rotten 01:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How would MoveOn fit in here?

MoveOn, as an organization founded and funded by George Soros, follows the political philosophy of it's founder. Given Mr. Soros' similar activities to dictate public policy in Europe (e.g. freely available abortions in Russia), I believe it's safe to say that members/followers/subscribers to MoveOn may be as relevant to the parent organization as teats on a boar; it's merely convenient that people ally themselves with MoveOn. One man's opinion and his billions still rule the day. Call it astroturfing with expendable disciples.

Ten-seven 19:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this qualifies as astroturfing?

I appended the following aseveration to the article: The Autoridad del Canal de Panama, ACP, which administrates the Panama Canal on behalf of the panamanian goverment, contracted the services of Edelman, an american PR firm to "correct inconsistencies" that may be posted on public forums. As this "corrections" are done without specifically referencing this relationship, this qualifies as astroturfing, IMO. So, I ask the editors: yes or not? Thanks

What's your source regarding this claim? The problem here is that we cannot accuse groups of astroturfing without it being verifiable from a reliable source. Otherwise we open ourselves up to legal accusations. --tjstrf 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

right on 63.88.5.130 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Me

Astroturfing or... psyops ?

I just discovered this article and I'm quite surprised. I'm pretty sure "astroturfing" is simply slang for "psychological operations". I'm only one voice in the hive but maybe I wont be the only one to think that... Bragador 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The UFCW and Wake Up Wal-Mart

One anonymous user recently added the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union's Wake Up Wal-Mart project to the Recent Examples section. Even if that poster may strongly dislike the UFCW and/or Wake Up Wal-Mart, that does not necessarily mean that one can accurately classify Wake Up Wal-Mart as an act of astroturfing. In fact, I can think of two reasons why Wake Up Wal-Mart may not be astroturfing after all:

1. The UFCW seems to be far more honest about being the driving force behind Wake Up Wal-Mart than Wal-Mart apparently has been about its own influence over Working Families for Wal-Mart.

2. Labor unions, by their nature, are (or at least tend to be) grassroots organizations anyway -- which definitely cannot be said about Wal-Mart and other large business corporations.

Thus, for the time being, I have removed the Wake Up Wal-Mart references, although I am open to compelling arguments for restoring the information.--TwoTone 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly anonymous - all of Wake Up Wal-Mart's press releases claim that they are "grass roots" when they are in fact not and hide their union affiliation whenever possible. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with what they are doing. In the "about" setion on their web site, they fail to disclose that they are funded and run by the union. User:davidwiz 10:09:00 28 September 2006 (EST)

As of Nov. 2, the About page of Working Families for Wal-Mart fails entirely to disclose their connection to Wal-Mart, although though the news that Wal-Mart founded and funded them, but intended more "transparency" in the future came out on October 20. The Wake Up Wal Mart website acknowledges the connection to United Food and Commercial Workers International Union on every page in their copyright notice. Walmart Watch lists its board of directors and their affiliations on its About page. But face it, all three of these groups are basically astroturf groups, no matter which of them you or I might or might not agree with. betsythedevine 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the information I wrote about Wake Up WalMart which user Betsy Devine had deleted. I also reverted information about Wal Mart Watch which had also been deleted.--Davidwiz 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, David, I thought that the information about Wake Up Wal Mart was adequately integrated into the information I'd added about Working Families for Wal Mart, which made it clear that WUWM was an astroturf group. betsythedevine 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting the information about Wal-Mart Watch and WakeUp Wal-Mart? If you want to add other Wal-Mart related groups, that's fine, but stop deleting these.--Davidwiz 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So a union, like UFCW, is the textbook definition of a grassroots organization. so to accuse them of astroturfing is blatantly untrue . sounds a lot like an entry that would be on conservapedia and not one that belongs on something striving to be factual. so i'm going to go ahead and delete this reference here. Kopasa 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true that a union can't astroturf. A union could easily conceal its agenda to give the impression of a spontaneous popular movement. After all, union members don't typically know everything their union is doing! However, that said, I don't see the argument that Wal-Mart Watch is an astroturfing organization. The essence of astroturfing seems to be concealment and disguise, and their website makes their affiliations quite clear, as betsythedevine pointed out in 11/06. Accordingly I've deleted the reference to Wal-Mart Watch in this article. -- Mpete631702 12:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Astroturfing

I removed the paragraph on Microsoft being accused of Astroturfing. It wasn't particularly NPOV because it left out some facts regarding original LA Times article the Newsfactor article was based upon (What is it with news sites reporting about other reports anyways? Attempts to Spin the article their own way?). For example, the original LA Times news story (which doesn't appear to be accessible anymore) said that the letters from deceased individuals had had the names of the deceased crossed off and family members wrote in their own and mailed them in, which is somewhat different that what the wikipedia paragraph portrayed. See other articles which shed more light: http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/871631

It's hard to do this sort of topic without bias, but we shouldn't be misrepresenting things just because a biased article claims it. 12.207.87.61 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the paragraph you removed as the basic case that they were 'astroturfing' seems as sound as that against any other organisation mentioned in this article. If you think text is incorrect, you should edit it rather than simply remove it. Nunquam Dormio 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

As this article now redirects here, I'd like to point out that its historical revisoons still may contain info that can be used, and that it's talk page is pretty extensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The link to "wise use movent" under See Also has nothing to do with this article; Im' deleting it. Noclevername 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Blair Witch Project

Aha a name for it...I always wondered about this film but have not devoted the time to looking for references or evidence. If it fit the cirteria it would be a notable subject on the page :)Cas Liber 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

False flag

I have added a link to False flag in the See also list. It's important to not confuse these two different forms of propaganda. dreddnott 05:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq

What about in Iraq, when the Iraqis toppled the Saddam statue? That was astroturfing.

  -- There were many statues toppled by Iraqis, and many more by Coalition troops.

However, you have no evidence, one way or another, that an organization deliberately
started a fake grass-roots movement. Many Iraqis, Shiites in particular (Kurds for sure),
were jubilant at the fall of Saddam's regime. Your opinions about the 2003-(?) Iraq war
aside, you have brought no astroturfing evidence to us.

j.bennion 75.162.169.120 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of content by Nssdfdsfds

Nssdfdsfds (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed content critical of the Center for Consumer Freedom under the claim that it does not present itself as a "grassroots" organization, but a lobby group. This is inaccurate-- lobby groups aim at promoting their positions through governmental influence. Astroturfing groups attempt to change public opinion by presenting themselves as "consumer nonprofits". Numerous sources agree with the assessment that the CCF is such a group:

• "Berman’s efforts might not seem all that remarkable in a city where industry-funded "astroturf" groups are so emboldened that many no longer bother concealing funding sources....

How often do we get such an intimate peek at a major corporation's decision to bankroll an astroturf group? [CCF]" ("Berman's Battle"American Prospect Online, January 3, 2005)

• "The CCF casts itself as a public interest organization with a libertarian commitment to consumer choice, but to those it attacks, it is a classic corporate front group... The CCF’s main activity is the publication of rhetorical blasts on its web site, in letters-to-the-editor, in opinion pieces, in an e-newsletter, and in press releases that are often warped and intemperate." ("Center for Consumer Freedom: Non-Profit or Corporate Shill?", Humane Society of United States, July 1, 2005)
• "CCF and EPI are mere extensions of BCI that conduct grassroots lobbying, public relations, and advertising services directed against the charitable and social welfare organizations that oppose the policies and practices of those industries." ("CREW Files IRS Complaint Against The Center for Consumer Freedom Alleging Violations of Tax Exempt Status", Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics, November 16, 2004)
• "The "Center for Consumer Freedom" placed ads in the NYT attacking PETA, a radical pro-animal group. A little digging reveals that the "Center for Consumer Freedom" is an astroturf organization (fake grassroots) funded by the fast-food companies that PETA opposes." ("Astroturfers attack PETA in the NYT" Boing Boing, January 22, 2007)

Even their own press releases try to make them sound grassrootsy: "The Center for Consumer Freedom, a consumer watchdog group, is running a full-page open letter in Thursday's Hollywood edition of Variety..." ("Open Letter Demands Celebrities Withdraw Support for PETA" Press release, January 24, 2007)

As the PETA issue fell flat and the ad got pulled: "[T]he Center For Consumer Freedom is a front group for the restaurant, junk-food, alcohol and tobacco industries, and they regularly run elaborate media campaigns opposing the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, animal rights and environmental groups." ("Consumers! Beware Corporate Lapdogs Posing As Consumer Watchdogs", American Chronicle, February 4, 2007)

The inclusion of CCF among the users of "astroturfing" is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia standards. --Leflyman^Talk 02:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So, I know very little of astroturffing. I have been watching this page because I was trying to help mediate a COI dispute on Astroturf and FieldTurf, which were (ironically) being edited by representatives of the two companies. As, I understand the definition of astroturfing from the [Astroturfing|article]], it is a campaign that purports to be grassroots but is not. CCF describes themselves on their website as:

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

They seem to be honest about who is paying for it. Doesn't this fail the test above? -Selket ^Talk 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• No; it doesn't -- you've effectively proposed a "strawman argument" and answered it yourself. It doesn't matter how you or I perceive CCF -- it's how the group has been verifiably regarded by others in reliable sources. As the media references point out, the group is described as a faux-grassroots front group. Even the self-description you quote above is disingenuous -- CCF isn't a "coalition" nor is it composed of "consumers working together"; it is simply an PR shill. As noted in a 2005 USA Today editorial, "What's in a Name?" the Center for Consumer Freedom is intended to sound deceptively like a pro-consumer group, rather than a pro-industry special interest:

"Every group is entitled to its opinion, but it would have been nice if readers knew straight off that the center is heavily funded by restaurants and food companies — industries with a huge stake in battling concerns that Americans are eating themselves to death.

Maybe the group should change its Web site from ConsumerFreedom.com to FatforProfit.com....

A rose by any other name may smell as sweet. A special interest group with a deceptive name? That just stinks."--Leflyman^Talk 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Astroturf has a very particular meaning - pretending to be a 'grass roots' organisation when you are not. So if, for example, activistcash.com said "we are a bunch of concerned consumers fighting against the extremists", then that would be fake grass roots. OTOH, it says quite clearly on the front page that is funded by CCF, and has a link to CCF's site.[2] This page clearly defines what astroturfing is. An example would be posting a videos on youtube pretending to be from consumers. They don't. In fact they say who they are from. Even your source above "Berman’s efforts might not seem all that remarkable in a city where industry-funded "astroturf" groups are so emboldened that many no longer bother concealing funding sources" says that they are not concealing who they are, and therefore by this page's own definition cannot be astroturf. The heading is "Recent examples". If you have an example of sourced astroturfing by CCF, go ahead and list them. Otherwise they don't belong here. This page defines a particular term. Nssdfdsfds 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to have some elements of agenda pushing by both sides so I have marked it as such. The article has serious WP:Undue_weight issues. The list of "recent examples" is, I think, way to long and should be severly purged. Remember the purpose of this article is to educate people what astroturfing is; controversal examples fail to do that. It is not a chance to list every astroturfing campaign that has ever occured, or to call attention to the deceptive tactics of groups who's agendas you may not like. The controversal examples should be the first to go. --Selket ^Talk 15:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed many of them. The ones lacking citations were first to go. There was one about chocolate milk from Nestlé that I couldn't find much about online either, so I deleted that too. As you say, this article should be defining astroturfing, not finger pointing at organisations. If there is an issue with a given organisation astroturfing, it should go on that organisation's own page. Here is not a good dumping ground for criticism. It might be a good idea to remove further allegations from this list. Nssdfdsfds 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Nssdfdsfds. I'd never heard of the CCF before reading this article, and it sounds self-evidant that any industry group that explicitly describes itself as such, however abhorrent I or any one else may think it, should not be presented as such. Far more importantly though, there's no point whatsoever in having an example section. Every instance will inevitably be debated as NPOV, and even if they were all accepted, there'd be hundreds more that some individuals would like to insert. It's an endless POV war, and the only solution is for the whole "examples" section to be deleted. Let the individual pages battle it out. Life is too short... Loxlie 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In concentrating on corporations doing this the article omits the largest & most important player - government. For example Friends of the Earth Europe is almost wholly funded by the EU & its members & is then chosen by them as a preferred lobbyist, lobbying for more regulatory power. Ditto the UK's campaign for a smoking ban largely funded by government. The election of the Ukrainian & Georgian governments in the officially popular but actually western funded Orange & Rose revolutions may also be considered. Neil Craig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.31.147 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples section

Two points:

1. We only need enough examples so readers understand what astroturfing is. I don't think we need a comprehensive list of organizations branded as astroturf. Especially if it's a one-sided list, rather than a representative one. If a contributor were to use this list to advance the POV that only (or chiefly) anti-environmentalist groups pull this dodge, that would be a rules violation, wouldn't it?
2. The specific example which follows needs attribution (and could just as well be shortened using the {main} template.

Cut from article:

• In March 2006, a supposed called the Save Our Species Alliance was exposed as a front group that was created by a timber lobbyist to weaken the Endangered Species Act. The campaign director for this group is Tim Wigley, the Executive Director of Pac/West Communications. Wigley was also the campaign director for Project Protect, another front group that spent $2.9 million to help pass President Bush's Healthy Forests legislation which has been criticized for its pro-industry bias. [3] The Save Our Species Alliance web site portrays itself as a grassroots organization against the Endangered Species Act (the word "grassroots" is mentioned no less than five times on their "Take Action Now" page), but is criticized by environmentalists for being a front group for wealthy cattle and timber interests which consider Federal environmental legislation an impediment to profit.

Who says its not really an environmental group?

Who "exposed it as a front group"?

• Note that before it can be "exposed" as one, we must SHOW that it is one.
• Otherwise, it's better to say it was "branded" as one or (if you want to be nice "called" one)

We need to clarify what "weaken" means here. Does that mean to make the legitimate purposes of the Act ineffective? If so, who says so?

I linked Tim Wigley - this was momentarily delinked. Thanks for putting it back. Is there a policy against having red links? There wasn't, 5 years ago, when I first started volunteering here. If so, when did it change?

All the extra stuff about Wigley: what does this have to do with the claim that SOSA (1) is a "front group" or that it engaged in astroturfing? Is the point merely to link SOSA with Bush and/or industry? And who criticized it for such bias?

• Is is the point to make the article imply that SOSA is pro-industry? If so, why not just say it up front, in the SOSA article, like this:
  • SOSA is a pro-industry organization which campaigns for X (or against Y). A called it a "front group". B attacked it for astroturfing.

But it's not a good example for an article about astroturfing in general, if we only report charges against it. (Don't tell us, show us, eh?)

Whether it's used as an example which supports the Astroturfing article, or simply gets merged into the Save Our Species Alliance article, it still needs a lot of work.

I'm spending much more time talking about how to fix it, than fixing it myself because there are dozens of articles with similar weaknesses. I'd like us to work together to fix them up the same way. Well, it's getting late here, so, "Cheers!" --Uncle Ed 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

All the information you ask for is in the article linked in the text. Unless you have a denial from Wigley or similar, there's no dispute about the facts. Please check this kind of thing before blanking/tagging. If you have problems with the link, raise it. In the meantime, I've restored the deleted section.JQ 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If the answers to my questions are only in the externally-linked article, then just put SOSA in a list of groups "considered by some" as engaging in astroturfing. Like this:

Other examples:

• Save Our Species Alliance [4]

The way it is now, the passage raises more questions than it answers. It it contains weasel words, which is against the Wikipedia:Avoid using weasel words guideline. Please shorten it as suggested, or fix the weasel-worded parts as requested above. Simply putting it back in, warts and all, is hardly a service to our readers. --Uncle Ed 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation

Cut from article:

Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach," "awareness," etc.) and covert (disinformation) means.

The inclusion of "disinformation" goes beyond knocking its claim to represent the surging masses and accuses the campaign of lying - presumably about something more serious about whether it represents a groundswell. And what does "orchestrate" mean here? What are they trying to orchestrate, if not just their own hot air?

By the way, is it only anti-environmentalists who do astroturfing? How about anti-Bush riots overseas, which are government sponsored? Do those qualify as "fake grassroots" demonstrations of public opinion too? --Uncle Ed 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pot and kettle

Despite the impression given by this article, corporate groups aren't the only ones who indulge in astroturfing. Sorry this is only a blog entry, but I'm not as good at research as I'd like to be:

• Fenton practically invented "astroturfing". You might try a google search on fenton and Alar. You might remember the Alar apple scare where Fenton built a grassroots network of "concerned environmentalist" groups nationwide practically overnight. The finale was a 60 minutes piece on the dangers of Alar on apples. Nevermind that not a single person had ever been harmed.
• THANK YOU for shining light on this. I tried over a year ago to point out how Fenton Communications was orchestrating all of these antiwar groups/individuals and how people such as Dana Priest of the Washington Post had connections with many of these groups (Dana Priest through her husband connected to the Wilson/Plame issue and a Fenton client).
• Fenton Communications has been the driving force. One of their tactics is simple ... hijack an event, cause a spectacle, and become the focus to get the message out ... such as when Larry Johnson heckled Rumsfeld at a press conference (VIPS ... Fenton client) or when Sheehan disrupted a Democratic press conference. The idea is to steal the media eye and use it to get the message out. [5]

I like this passage because of the vivid phrase 'Fenton built a grassroots network of "concerned environmentalist" groups nationwide practically overnight.' Also, the link from the supposed groundswell to the 60 Minutes piece. Didn't this turn out to be a classic case of junk science? (Remind me to reread the Alar article tomorrow.) --Uncle Ed 03:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Alar article doesn't give much support to your case, Ed. Certainly TASSC and ACSH called it junk science, but since they are both Astroturf groups themselves, that doesn't help you.JQ 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

In July 2006, an article by Vladimir Socor, a veteran analyst of east European affairs for the Jamestown Foundation, claimed that a report on Transdniestria issued by the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty, "State Sovereignty of Pridnestrovie (PMR) under international law", was a Russian-sponsored attempt at disinformation. A spokesperson for the organization, Megan Stephenson, has denied these charges.[6] Shortly afterwards The Economist published two articles highlighting the ICDISS's lack of a physical presence and its disinclination to provide independent verification of its activities and previous existence.[7] The Economist also reported that prominent academics cited as sources in the ICDISS report on Transdniestria disclaimed any connection with the organization. The Economist noted the Wikipedia entry for ICDISS created as part of the apparent disinformation exercise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.226.169.133 (talk)

TCSDaily, Cato, and Heritage

These are not astroturfing organizations, they are think tanks (or in the case of TCSDaily, web-only think tank light). None pretend to be grassroots organizations so they can't be astroturfing. Take a look at the about pages on their websites, none list memership numbers. They were probably added by someone as an example of "publications I don't like" 65.96.181.124 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the astroturfing was done indirectly. Someone pretending to be grassroots would never admit to receiving money from said companies. --Argav ۞ 02:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, and before I even saw this note, just a few minutes ago I removed that section. Not to mention it was copied wholesale from another article with many ellipses, rendering it nigh on incomprehensible. Not worth saving, so I removed it. --Loudon clear 21:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Flagged for POV-pushing

This article is a particularly egregious case of POV-pushing, especially in the extremely long "recent examples" section. Many contributors apparently seem to think this page exists so their WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT druthers can be had. If you want to start an "Astroturf Watch" blog, do that. I'm of a mind to scale back this particular section to just a couple of examples. I suggest the Wal-Mart, PSP and Microsoft examples, because they are well-known and well-documented.

Meantime I've flagged the article, asked for citations on some things and removed a few that didn't qualify as astroturf. Welcome all comments, but especially as this article is the top Google result for astroturfing, this entry should be accurate and not simply serve as public stocks for shaming one's own personal bugaboo. --Loudon clear 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Content appears relevant and properly sourced. I don't see an issue justifying use of the tag. Odd nature 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

after reading whole article: weak against TAG. Esmehwp 03:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

====Flagged for POV-pushing==nd wh==Flagged for POV-pushing==t ==Flagged for POV-pushing

= what about NGO businesses???

There are a lot of examples of NGOs having their head offices decide a campaign and then media PR campaigns based on this. a good example is Friends of the Earth that often says that their is an alliance, for example in the uk there was a rural one supposedly set up connecting Women's institutes, Greenpeace, friends of the earth etc. yet when i tried to join it or mailed the concerned people there was no response and no actual organization there. i think looking into these NGOs might reveal lots of astroturfing. http://www.foe.co.uk/cgi-bin/htsearch?config=www_all;method=and;format=long;sort=score;words=National%20Federation%20of%20Women%27s%20Institutes;page=2

I have a suggestion

i have a suggestion for the page but , im not going to put it down immediatly as my grammar tends to be crap. i woud like to point out the existence of numourous pro-scientology groups such as religious freedom watch and panorama exposed

Definition has to be tighter

Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach," "awareness," etc.) and covert (disinformation) means.

The Friends of the Earth are probably one of the worst astroturfers this side of the meridian! It's true that in trying to join a so-called local chapter, all you get is zilch, nada, no response!

The same goes for a lot of these so-called Environmental NGO's. Cleverly using astroturfing techniques, they create scare campaigns, all designed to make us dig into our pockets. Either that, or they are active participants in protectionsm and economic assasination in the cause of empire! Mandy Hargitay 10:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

SOSA

I'm bringing this up again, because saying "exposed as a front group" implies that there is some evidence. I'm sure the charge is true, but without at least one person saying, "The money came not from farmers but from XY Chemicals" (or something like that) - it's not so much a matter of exposed as accused.

We might, however, make a section on disputed or controversial charges. But Wikipedia should not be used as a proxy for environmentalist vs. loggers, or whatever this dispute is really about. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this link will help. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Query about footnotes

Footnote 12 is from the Guardian website but is from their blogs section, which The Guardian has for their correspondents to blog and not have quite the same level of editorial backing. Can we use this as a source? 86.135.183.111 (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend that example be removed. Also, there are way too many Wal-Mart examples in this article. StaticElectric (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Long list of examples

The big problem with some of these examples isn't whether they count as astroturfing or not—that's not for we editors to decide. Unless you can find a reference which describes the activity as astroturfing, or with language that means the same thing, it shouldn't be in the list. If you add it because you think it's astroturfung, you're engaging in original research. —johndburger 03:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem common to all of Wikipedia, of course, not just this article. Tempshill (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22573751-663,00.html In this story presidential candidate Ron Paul is accused of astroturfing Mrmrmrmrmoooo (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

--Palm Oil-- What was wrong with the palm oil astroturfing site that was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Geist (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

US/UK english

astroturfing in British english has a very differnt meaning. it's a sexual expression used amongst the gay community —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.26.154 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on that, please? Henry Geist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Geist (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

removal of long copied text from article

From the Public Relations Society of America Member Code of Ethics 2000 [excerpt]:

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Core Principle Open communication fosters informed decision making in a democratic society.

Intent: To build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making.

Guidelines - A member shall:

Be honest and accurate in all communications.

Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the member is responsible.

Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented.

Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.

Disclose financial interest (such as stock ownership) in a client's organization.

Avoid deceptive practices.

Examples of Improper Conduct Under this Provision:

Front groups: A member implements "grass roots" campaigns or letter-writing campaigns to legislators on behalf of undisclosed interest groups.

Lying by omission: A practitioner for a corporation knowingly fails to release financial information, giving a misleading impression of the corporation's performance.

A member discovers inaccurate information disseminated via a Web site or media kit and does not correct the information.

A member deceives the public by employing people to pose as volunteers to speak at public hearings and participate in "grass roots" campaigns.

BusinessAsUnusual (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional of Recognition section

I have added this, which is an edited version of an article on The Unsuitablog. The article is my own, so is not unreferenced blog quoting, and derives from my own painstaking research on the operation of Astroturfs, which itself partly derives from much work carried out by Jim Hoggan and Corporate Watch. Just because text derives from a blog doesn't make it unsuitable for inclusion -- very little information on Wikipedia is derived from peer-reviewed journals. There is nothing on this entry which otherwise clearly identifies the methodology used to set up an Astroturf -- this is very relevant information.

Farnishk (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I accept that your addition is made in a good faith attempt to improve this article. For understandable reasons, Wikipedia has policies against people adding material based on their own research, material based on blogs (whether their own or someone else's), and material that is accompanied by links to their own blog. For relevant policies, see WP:NOR and WP:SOURCE. Please check out these policies and see if you can find ways to add the information you want without violating the policies in question. betsythedevine (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you mentioned in your edit summary that you found suspect my deletion of this material yesterday. Here is the relevant diff for that edit: [6]. Let me reassure you that I am not an evil representative of astroturfers, but on the contrary somebody who has worked against it for examples see [ site:betsydevine.com betsy-devine astroturfing]. In fact, I once published in my own blog guide to detecting an astroturf marketer: [7]. Another good Wikipedia policy tho is WP:AGF. betsythedevine (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could believe every word, but considering someone seems to have been asked to also watch this article and remove any contribution I make, I can't help feel something else is going on here. Merely by adding a reference to an offsite article suddenly seems to fall under Wiki entry regulations -- the text of the reference does not, providing it is relevant and useful. But of course some people are more equal than others here, aren't they? Farnishk (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is on the watchlist of most of the people who have ever edited it. At this very moment, all over Wikipedia, novice editors are adding links to *their* blogs to articles they think that they are improving. And experienced editors are removing those links. Take a look at this page for more information [8] betsythedevine (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What would be fine, and what I would encourage you to do, would be to put any blog material you want on your user page at Farnishk. Then learn more about Wikipedia's policies and start making "good" edits to articles (this entire article could use some re-writing) and people who see your edits and like them will go to your user page to learn more about you. I'm really trying to be helpful and welcome you to Wikipedia. Also bear in mind that even though "astroturfing" is a pejorative term for a marketing tactic that you (with many other people) disapprove, the tone of this article should remain NPOV. There are other wikis out there like SourceWatch that don't care so much about NPOV as we do here. betsythedevine (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for being patient with me. I have reflected and decided to keep things to myself -- as Derrick Jensen wrote: all writers are propogandists. That can't be helped and I guess I'm just too passionate to be NPOV. Farnishk (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Astroturfing as a marketing practice is now illegal in the EU

Look at this ref[9]. Should be integrated in the article. MaxPont (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- I looked at the article you cite and also at the supporting government information about the new rules enacted (Consumer Protection from UnfairTrading Regulations 2008) [10] The new regulations do forbid many dodgy and deceptive sales practices, but the closest they come to forbidding astroturfing is item 22:

Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not

acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or

falsely representing oneself as a consumer.

[For example] A second-hand car dealership puts a used car on a nearby road and

displays a handwritten advertisement reading 'One careful owner. Good

family run-around. £2000 or nearest offer. Call Jack on 01234 56789'.

The sign gives the impression that the seller is not selling as a trader,

and hence this would breach the CPRs.

According to another news story, [11]

This means if an advert or piece of marketing is a disguised commercial practice it will be captured.

So, imitating a consumer or not being up front about an advertiser’s intention

within a piece of marketing is no longer allowed. To this extent, misleading ‘word of mouth’ or ‘buzz’ marketing becomes an offence, as well as fake blogs or ‘astroturfing’.

To the extent that the word "astroturfing" gets broadened from its original meaning to cover stealth marketing to end consumers, this new regulation does affect it. But the astroturfing in its original meaning, which targets political and regulatory bodies with misleading claims of widespread citizen support, this new regulation does nothing to make it illegal. betsythedevine (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing examples

Many examples in the "Recent examples" section are examples of false flag deception in the public eye, not astroturfing. I'm removing them. Tempshill (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put them back; hope you don't mind. I think the line here is a little blurry, and this stuff deserves to be in the article. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph in the political examples section starting with "Around 2004-2007 the White House has engaged in..." seems to be done wrong. It isn't cited anywhere, not one word in it is linked to any other pages, and towards the end seems to be more of a biased editorial than something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Until the original auther comes and tries to ammend some of these problems, or someone has to time to go find citations and remove bias from the paragraph, I am going to remove it from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmyers4 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Revealed"

I am the programmer mentioned. I object to the use of the word "revealed" and regard any attempt to call this astroturfing as personally offensive and factually inaccurate. The definition of astroturfing goes to some kind of faking of a grassroots movement. In my case, there was no faking or hiding: it was all out in the open. And I hope I don't need to repeat that the Wikipedia rules entirely allow participation (strictly in the discussion pages) even by hired subject experts (as long as there is full disclosure, of course.) I would like to invoke the rule that allows people to alter what they believe to be libellous statements about them selves. So I will replace the text with a comment one why this is not astroturfing. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FoxNews and Tea Parties

I suggest consideration of Fox News's advocacy of the Tea Party as an example of asstroturfing by a major media outlet. Not only are on-hour hosts promoting the Tea Parties, they have organized, will participate in, and lead some of the activities. All this while the message and portrayal of the movement as grassroots.

Latichever (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should wait out a day before posting anything on the Tea Parties, however, it will be inevitable that they be added to the astroturfing article.

I'd have to say Fox New's role is an example of Hunter S. Thompson's Gonzo journalism, along with astroturfing

Not only that but a right wing organization, Americans for Prosperity are offering financial rewards for publicizing tea parties. Real grassroots organizations don't have these sorts of incentives or rewards. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also made the comment that the tea parties are astroturf by wealthy Americans, but did not specifically say who.

SOURCES Rewards http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/heritage-afp-tea-party/

Nancy Pelosi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P44q7Jt68DA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.1.182 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How can it be astroturfing? Were all the thousands of people in attendance paid shills? Does the presence of promotion automatically make it astroturfing? If that is the standard, this article should have at least ONE mention of MoveOn.org or George Soros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.114.162 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is you had right wing organizations, such as Freedom Works, Kato Insitute and Richard Mellon Scaife (Who actually is proactive in running right wing propaganda, unlike George Soros is accused on the left) And the fact that Fox News put in what would be the equivalent of at least 10 million dollars into free advertisement for these astroturf events.

Along with the fact that there is no coherent message more than they don't like the bail out and being taxed. Why did they not protest under Bush and the fact that they are getting a [i]Tax Cut[/i]. If anything, the cognitive dissidence was shown in Pensacola Tea Party in the dots were all connected, but then they can't believe the blame is on their party.

Also, give evidence as to how MoveOn.org is an Astroturf Organization, and don't say 'George Soros funds them' since he doesn't.

Pensacola Tea Party http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkOwsIIIe5I

Fox News admitting Team Party P.R. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ZzMW5CqlU

Just for good measure from the people you love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAcTMepFLhA

67.190.1.182 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't challenge your assertion that George Soros doesn't fund MoveOn.org. In 2004 he directly gave $5 million to it, but I'm sure that somehow in liberal wackyspeak that means he's never given them a penny. But by your own definition, if MoveOn spends a single penny promoting a "grassroots" protest, it is Astroturfing. It doesn't matter if the participants in a protest have any kind of grassroots motivation - once a third party steps in and spends some money, it's all over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.114.162 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As a volunteer for the Dallas Tea Party, I can tell you that we haven't received a penny of funding from Fox, Freedom Works, Richard Scaife, or anyone else. Someone is providing the national adds on FOX; I don't know who. Other than that, those organizations are doing exactly what they say they are, which is providing advice on organizing and such. Our Tax Day event was financed by passing the hat at organizational meetings. The recommended donation? $5. Other than that, the only assistance we received was donations of PA equipment and sign-making materials from local small businesses, and a discount on the rental of a podium.

I can tell you that the Tea Party, or at least the Dallas version thereof, is as authentically grass roots as a movement can be. It is spontaneous, having crystallized around Rick Santelli's broadcasted Tea Party comments, which captured the imagination of many citizens who shared his concerns, and who quickly spread the Tea Party meme around the country via the Internet's social networking tools. And it is local - our events have been planned, funded, and executed entirely at the local level. Speakers and other participants are have been in attendance not to direct the events, but because local committees have invited them and requested their assistance in spreading the movement's message. I know this to be true, because I've seen it happen from the inside. What's more, the organization's long-tern goals and strategies are emerging from meetings being held at the precinct level across the city of Dallas and in the suburbs. Ideas are moving up from the street level. No direction is moving "down" from national organizations. This is the essence of grass roots political activity.

I fail to see how the Tea Party's message (or lack thereof) sheds any light on the grass roots question. I can assure you that many of the Tea Party volunteers who have a Republican background, myself among them, have been working diligently within the party to resist the spendthrift tendencies that have unfortunately become prevalent. To suggest that Republicans did not protest under Bush is to suggest nonsense. Witness the activities of the Club For Growth, witness the wide number of primary challenges in this and recent years against GOP officeholders who have veered from the path of fiscal prudence, witness the party's having nominated for president the candidate most closely associated with deficit reduction in the primaries, and finally, witness the number of GOP officeholders who have been energetically booed at Tea Parties this spring.

I have a realistic view (which is to say, pessimistic) of how successful I will be in persuading the posters above of the truthfulness of my claims. I do hope to build a consensus, however, around the idea that the Tea Party section of this article does not consider the evidence supporting the view that the Tea Party is in fact a grass roots phenomenon, and not an example of Astroturfing. Alternately, it could be written to suggest that the Tea Party has features of both grass roots and Astroturf organizations. I'll be making edits towards these ends in the next few days; I hope they'll be fairly considered.

Can we at least agree that the clauses referencing "the usual group of right-wing billionaires", and the fact that the Tea Parties are being promoted by Fox, "of course", are a bit much? John W Wright (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The recent public debate about Tea Parties included a lot of talk about Astroturfing. It is appropriate for this article to let both sides of that debate give their claims in their own words. The article makes it clear that Paul Krugman, not Wikipedia, made the strong claim that the events were organized and promoted by several familiar powers in right-wing politics. The counter-argument that the enthusiasm of participants shows the events were genuine, is also given. I think the article does a good job of maintaining WP:NPOV on this issue. The last of the arguments you are objecting to on the talk page. however, dates back to April. betsythedevine (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of astroturfing

Chances are, if it comes from a major television network, it is not Astroturfing. What is described above completely lacks the 'stealth' element of astroturfing. The target of astroturfing must not have such an obvious reason to believe that the pressure on them comes from the original source, but rather think that it comes from a grass roots advocacy group.

Sources used for examples should include verification of all aspects of the Astroturfing definition. E.g., this recently deleted example shows verification of a target, a source, and pressure, but no verification that the people pressuring the target were not overtly stating their membership in the source group, let alone that they or the original source were misrepresenting the source of the pressure. If such can be found, it should be included. Anarchangel (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Astroturfing - Unions

I pasted this from User talk:The Squicks given that Mike (can I call you Mike?) makes a good point here that should be read by the other editors.

Hello again. I am not sure that your recent edit is in compliance with the Wikipedia verifiability policy. Could you please bring to my attention the source that declares as fact that union-supported causes are "astroturf"? If an individual is declaring as his or her own opinion that this is true, we need to use direct attribution to make sure that this piece of information is verifiable as the opinion of XYZ. God bless MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please bring to my attention the source that declares as fact that union-supported causes are "astroturf"? Since I didn't say that and I don't believe that, I would be hard to find a reference in support of that.

What is at issue is whether or not a given set of activities qualify as astroturf. As the article says, "The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity". Thus, it is possible for any single individual or group of individuals to astroturf- whether they are churches, companies, union, priests, scientists, whatever. Astroturfing is an act and not a type. The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if you're asking for me to name specific names here- I'm happy to. SEIU has teamed up with the drug lobby PhRMA to finance ads in support of more government involvement in healthcare without disclosing their relationship in the ads. The Public Relations Society of America called this astroturf (they did not use the exact term 'astroturf' in their material since they respect the copyright, but they called it as the same behavior). The Squicks (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot to mention that I am getting this from the Ben Smith article. I understand that, as per the talk page material, the "he says, she says" between FreedomWorks and HCAN was not enough to qualify HCAN in the article. But this is different given that the PRSA is not an ideological organization than FW (and noone has ever accused PRSA of being astroturf, while the FW-HCAN dispute was a "you are, no you are" type of dispute). The Squicks (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thus, it is possible for any single individual or group of individuals to astroturf- whether they are churches, companies, union, priests, scientists, whatever. If it can be any single individual or group of individuals (I do not agree), then enumerating a few of them is a WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD violation. Furthermore, we should be careful not to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH when we talk about what astroturfing is, which types of organization represent something other than public interest, etc... Obviously a bona fide grassroots organization supporting another bona fide grassroots organization is not astroturf, so saying that it's "any individual or organization" is inaccurate. There is also a POV pertaining to this issue that argues that nearly any political movement is astroturf (the FreedomWorks point of view). We need to be careful to directly attribute these ideas to their owners, and not state them as fact.

Furthermore, "The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity" is from which source? I just carefully read the politico article several times and could not find the sentence you're quoting. It seems very closely aligned with the FreedomWorks POV, in that as soon as a bonafide grassroots movement receives support from any "single individual or group of individuals" whatsoever, it becomes astroturf. MichaelLNorth (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says=

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual pushing a personal agenda or highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, unions, non-profits, or activist organizations.

And the above is in the article even though it is cited to nothing (which obviously is a problem). I propose that we replace the above with the following=

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of an entity as an independent public reaction to some other entity or to itself. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate and oraganize the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals by both overt and covert means. The Public Relations society of America has equated the practice with the use of 'front groups' in which a group hides behind another group without disclosing the relationship.

And then we cite that to (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26312.html#ixzz0QS433BPo) The Squicks (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You pointed out that WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD is violated when the lead refers to some specific groups who astroturf and does not mention others. The solution to this is to not mention any group- unions, NGOs, non-profits, politicans, whatever- in the lead. The Squicks (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"It seems very closely aligned with the FreedomWorks POV, in that as soon as a bonafide grassroots movement receives support from any "single individual or group of individuals" whatsoever, it becomes astroturf."

The POV of FW is not that 'anyone is astroturf', as you say. The source clearly states that according to FW, they are not astroturf and the opposition is. According to the unions and the left-wing political groups, they are not astroturf and the opposition is. Each side views itself as legitimate and the opponents as immoral. It's basically like listening to an argument between small children, isn't it? Like the source says, its a "You suck, no you suck"/"you are, no you are" kind of dispute. The Squicks (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your quote from the "Public Relations Society of America" is a great starting point. I think a lot of what is in this article either is based on, or suggestive of various peoples' view of "what is astroturfing". What you have there is a statement from a firm whose expertise on this topic is unquestionable, and our "definition" should either paraphrase or directly quote it. Note that they say nothing about "financial contributions" or anything of the like -- it's more about putting a mask on an old face that would bring baggage to an issue. For example, TheFacesOfCoal.org is largely comprised of coal companies and their lobbying firms, but you wouldn't know it looking at their "grassroots-y website. Citizens for Better Medicare's director is Tim Ryan, formerly head of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, but you wouldn't know it without doing a little research. SourceWatch is a good website that documents these types of things.

Financial backing, especially if a large amount comes from one organization or several with a nearly identical interest, is a good indicator of something being a front group, but it's no smoking gun. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

SourceWatch is a good website that documents these types of things. Given that it it is a blog/wiki with no independent monitoring that is hosted by a far-left political action group, I would regard it as a very poor source. I don't think it matches up with WP:RS at all. The Squicks (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, it's not an appropriate source in and of itself, but it contains references to newspapers, magazines, webpages of various allegedly astroturf-y organizations, etc... Many of the SOURCES of Sourcewatch are appropriate for Wikipedia use. This is why I mentioned it here, and not as an EL in the article (although someone else did, and it was reverted, as it should have been). — Mike :  tlk  03:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems crazy to me that funding or support from outside sources is not mentioned in the first sentence or a requisite of all instances mentioned in the article. Support is not merely a smoking gun, it is the dirty deed. Wishing to appear to be grassroots is something that all grassroots organizations not only wish for but deserve; by the standards of the current definition, all grassroots organizations are astroturf also. Ideological affiliation is what makes front groups so easy to prove and so meaningless as a definition. They think the same. Woot. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, that those organizations which support business are, by definition, the ones with money. They don't NEED support. To claim that every other viewpoint is therefore astroturfing because they require funding from an outside source is extremely POV. SmashTheState (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

tea parties

There has been some low level edit warring concerning adding a link to Tea Party protests to the see also section. I feel that these tea parties are not a good canidate for see also because there is no good proof that they actually are an example of astroturf. If you look at the tea party article, the charges of astroturf are only a small section supported by a few opinion articles, which I would say is a far cry from proof. Including a link from here is a NPOV problem because it creates the illusion that these tea parties are a good example of astroturf even though the tea parties article does not support that claim. Bonewah (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it is clearly related. It isn't listed under see also as an example, and we have RS linking it to astroturfing, and it is discussed at that article. The point of see also is to point to related articles. Editwarring over a see also like this, which has RS, is pathetic. Further disruptive edits will probably lead to page protection or further action. There is no NPOV problem with such see also links (even WP:BLP isn't get this fussy about see also links). Verbal chat 14:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Solution: Someone add, with the RS, the allegations of "astroturfing" to the political examples section. Verbal chat 15:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wendell Potter clearly describes the process; put it back. -MBHiii (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You seriously dont see an NPOV problem here? Explain to me how it is both related to and not an example of astroturf in your opinion. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, that Wendell Potter article is an opinion piece, I would not call that reliable. Bonewah (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want further input I'd suggest taking the one issue to WP:NPOVN, and the other (about all the sources) to WP:RSN. I'm pretty sure they are RS though. Any policy reasons why they aren't? Verbal chat 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a simple question, you claim that tea parties are related to astroturfing and also claim that it is not listed as an example, explain. Bonewah (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not linked from any of the example sections (although it could, probably should, be - if context is added). It is linked fro the WP:SEEALSO section. The fact that a controversy exists as to whether this is an example or not (outside wikipedia) shows it is relevant, and the point of the see also section is to link to articles with related content that aren't already linked in the text. I personally think all American (US) politics is silly, and I've seen PMQs! I have no opinion on whether the tea parties is or is not astroturfing, but it is clearly involved in the very definition of what astroturfing is in US politics. Hence relevant. To me, astroturfing means laying a fake pitch. Verbal chat 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The organizers are upfront about who they are, unlike the unions opposing them. This isn't astroturf, its "community organizing" in the normal sense. 12.5.61.130 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

An opinion; a Point Of View. Please provide RS (and if you did, that would actually go for the link), or show policy reasons why the link shouldn't be added or the sources can be discounted. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason, or an excuse for petty edit warring. Verbal chat 17:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have: wp:NPOV. As for the sources, reliable sources says "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text." (emphasis in original) and also "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." Those authors may be of the opinion that these tea parties are astroturf, and that opinion may be notable enough for the tea party articles, but to put them here is a violation of NPOV because it gives the impression that the tea parties are an example of astroturf.

Let me give you an example. Some people are of the opinion that Barack Obama is a socialist. However, it would be an NPOV violation to include his name in the see also section of socialism, because he does not self-identify as a socialist and the only proof that he is a socialist is the opinions of some people. Same thing here, some people are of the opinion that tea parties are astroturf, but that is only their opinion. Bonewah (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Wendell Potter's piece is classified as "opinion" in no way denies that it is filled with statements of fact, from the horse's mouth so to speak, that stand utterly uncontested by anyone in an equal position (i.e. from CIGNA). "Tea parties", like "teabaggers", does not apply narrowly but applies to anyone waving a sign and shouting slogans, like Potter concocted, in opposition to (what they perceive to be) the Democratic agenda. -MBHiii (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that this isn't some random blogger who has written this article, it is a former Vice President of a health insurance company, and one of few people capable of offering candid insight on this issue from the insurance co. perspective. He has testified before congress, and is a key figure in health care reform. Wendell Potter is without question an expert on health care, especially when it comes to lobbying and its image in the public eye (which has everything to do with astroturfing). — Mike :  tlk  20:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tea parties have almost nothing to do with health care, and, the article you linked doesnt mention tea parties either. If you think Potter should be listed in the see also, I wont object, but he is a distraction to the tea party issue as it relates to this article. Bonewah (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1)Would it be acceptable to have a see also' link to 'Socialism' in the article 'U.S. Democratic Party'? 2)Would it be acceptable to have a see also' link to 'Black Supremacy' in the article 'Barack Obama'? 3)If you say no to either 2) or 1), how can you accept the hipocracy?

Really, just because a bunch of political activists bandy around an accusation does not make it fact. See also sections are for statements of objective fact, not for opinions. The Squicks (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If we had RS that either of those weren't fringe beliefs then yes they should be in the articles, though the Obama article is covered by BLP also. It would be better in al cases if the link was added in context. What we have here is a notable controversy about whether it is/isn't astroturfing, and your partisan POV editing is not helping the project. I think you all need to have a look at WP:V, actually read WP:NPOV, and look at what the purpose of wikipedia actually is. Verbal chat 07:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone who's user page gives you a 'Civility Award' to immediately assume bad faith at anyone who dares disagree with you at the drop of a hat is rather funny.

Anyways, the see also sections are for things that are notable AND factual. Something that its notable given its opinion-based coverage does not fall under that standard. The Squicks (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care and tea parties should not be mingled in this article

The tea parties that took place in August 2009 used to have a brief paragraph giving the statements for and against widespread allegations that they were "astroturf," which should be restored. The August tea parties focused on government spending in general. betsythedevine (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

protected

I've fully protected the article for a period of three days, hopefully the involved users can resolve their disputes in that time and not go back to edit warring when protection expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If people could bring a specific policy reason for not including See Also links that are supported by WP:RS, could they include place it here. Otherwise the link should be restored at the end of this period. Verbal chat 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the links are not supported by RS. They are allegations from a group of far-left activists in various opinion sources. The Squicks (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How many articles from National Review, Weekly Standard, and so on are available accusing left-wing groups of astroturf? Lots. Does their opinions = Fact? Nope. The Squicks (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Which bit of RS do the multiple independent sources break? Sources showing that there is a controversy is enough, I'm not looking for RS that it is astrotufing necessarily. The RS does seem to show, as the tea party article does, that there is a controversy - hence it is related. Verbal chat

It's a small minority viewpoint in sources that- as policy states- are only usable for the opinions of the writers. Including this brings up questions of weight. After all, if we include a link to the tea party people then we must- and I mean must- include a link to SEIU if we apply the same standard. God only knows how many times they have bussed in undercover people to shout out and muscle out the people on their enemies list. The Squicks (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The tea party astroturfing made news in the UK and france, while I've never heard of the SEIU. Verbal chat 21:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"But I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon! How could he have won?" is not a relevant argument. The Squicks (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem here, and in other articles related to this, is that people talk about rules like WP:WEIGHT and "minority viewpoints" as if these concepts are objective. Since we can't have possibly read all sources on these topics, and we can't claim to be writing articles free from our own personal opinions, "violations" of these policies and guidelines are entirely in the point of view of the editor.

Conceding that the dispute is a matter of opinion here (although it is a legitimate dispute) is a good start, since both "sides" accusing the other of advocating a policy breach as clear-cut as WP:VANDALISM will likely result in a perpetual edit war (see: what has been going on in this article as of late).

The following is my own personal opinion: "See Also", "External Links" and "Categories" should not ever be anything subjective, since the association seems to be coming from the "voice" of Wikipedia. It's fine, in my opinion, to do this type of thing in the body of the article, since you can elaborate and provide references -- a tool that the various "unqualified labels" (read: pieces of information requiring no further elaboration) do lend themselves well to. However, I have not successfully been able to convince other editors of this in other articles (like removing the subjective "Eco-terrorism" category from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article). — Mike :  tlk  23:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it's far more objective than you are putting it (although I would prefer to think of 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' as hypothetical end points on a continuum rather than actual, livable ideas). A plethora of opinion-style pieces from various left-wing (or right-wing) sources are different than a plethora of pieces from established centrist news agencies.

Thus, there would be nothing inherently wrong with putting a See also link to 'Eco-capitalism' under the article 'Van Jones' (he uses that term all the time, other RS use it). But it would be a serious issue to put the links 'Maoism' or 'Black nationalism' (he does not subscribe to those terms and the RS' that use it are problematic). The Squicks (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In any event, the only sources that state that the tea parties are astroturf are editorials, which are most emphatically not RS, Verbal's protestations not withstanding. Bonewah (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my/our point. The Squicks (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)