|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
The way the article is written as a piece of propaganda. The angry tone is remarkable to the point of being slanderous. Hawkseye 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is the article so stiff and laudatory? This is a guy who Fortune Magazine (yeah, FORTUNE) called "the greediest executive" on the planet! His phony "Media Research Council" were responsible for over half of the complaints the FCC received last year for "indecency" on television. I mean, come on...the guy is a right-wing apocalyptic evangelical who uses his inherited businesses to further his hateful, brainless variety of Christianity. Not to mention his hatred of reason and science which he furthers by funding the completely bogus creationist "Discovery Institute". His fundamentalism has been widely reported on in the press so why is it not at least documented in the article here? Inoculatedcities 16:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The comments above deserve a point-by-point response. The Fortune Magazine article which branded Phil Anschutz at the "Greediest executive" failed to provide the full set of facts for the very basis of this outrageous descriptor. As the founder of Qwest and the person who invested hundreds of million dollar in the company, Anschutz was given a certain amount of "founders stock" when Qwest went public. In 1999 Anschutz sold a portion of his Qwest stock through three sales that amounted to approximately 20% of hia Qwest portfolio. The largest of the three was a $1.6 billion sale to Bell South, to which Fortune writer Mark Gimein took strong exception. What Gimein didn't report was the stock sale was required by Bell South because its officials wanted to decrease Anschutz's ownership in Qwest as a predicate to Bell Sounth entering into joint ventures with Qwest and perhaps even a merger. Anschutz held onto the remaining 80% of his original stock for years ... as its value contined to decline. Anschutz didn't sell the remaining stock until he got off the Qwest board.
The above description of Anschutz's beliefs as "brainless" and "hateful" does a disservice to everyone who takes Wikipedia seriously. (1) The Media Research Council is not "his" - Anschutz simply contributes to the organization. And if "decency" is a negative trait of conservatives ... is "indecency" the currency of liberals? (2) Anschutz did not inherit his businesses. He took the risks necessary and made the investments needed to create success and jobs. (3) The commentator claims that Anschutz has a hatred of reason and science because of he contributed to the Discovery Institute. The facts are, the Anschutz Foundation made a $70,000 grant to the Institute in 2003 for the express purpose of supporting the work of telecom guru George Gilder. The grant had nothing to do with evolution and creationism. In fact, Institute President Bruce Chapman wrote a letter-to-the-editor (Rocky Mountain News) in 2006 citing the fact that Anschutz had not given "one nickle" to their program dealing with evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jem303 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of his philanthropy to the Denver Art Museum, the CU Medical School and University Hospital, and other benevolent causes ? I understand not liking the guy or his political views, but the world is not so simple that holding critical conservative views negates all other benevolence. His intro notes "businessman and supporter of conservative Christian causes". Why should he be noted for only these two items, and not his philanthropy ?Miles.obediah (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone removed the quotes I put around the word "researches" in the sentence about the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute certainly funds people of various levels of education and professional experience to write about and promote their patently un-scientific ideas, however, it must be stated that they do not conduct scientific research. They are an activist and proselytizing front for religious anti-evolutionists. To call their propagandizing (which is done under the guise of objectivity and isn't always explicitly religious) "research" is to grossly misunderstand and mislabel them - and to denigrate the word "research". The quotes around the word "researches" have been added back and should not be removed. If you need more information, please see the article about them (Discovery Institute) and it's talk page. Inoculatedcities 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The quotes indicate a particular POV by Wikipedia, so I've removed them. Please do not try to insert your POV into articles in this manner. "Researches" is a perfectly good word that encompasses many scholarly activities, most of which are not scientific. --C S (Talk) 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the entire sentence about the Discovery Institute is a POV, and an extremist one at that. For example, it does not "deny evolution", is not Christian (although like just about all organizations, some members are Christians), and has published thousands of pages of scientific research, which the writers of this wiki page could not begin to understand. And, by the way (common myth), it is not "Creationist" either.
For that matter, what is the point in having hypertext links to other Wikipedia pages, if someone is going to reduce an entire organization to a few words of their characterization ? The idea of the hyperlink is to allow people to go to the wikipedia page for Discovery Institute, and make up their own mind (if they are interested), rather than having one person's propaganda be a substitute.
By the way, if you don't think the sentence (and the paragraph about Discovery Institute by the writer in the discussion above) is a slanted POV, then you should look the difference between "anti-Darwinist" and "anti-evolutionist". Discovery Institute is the former and not the latter, which shows the POV.
- The difference between 'anti-Darwinist' and 'anti-evolutionist' is, frankly, only visible to anti-Darwinists and anti-evolutionists. And the difference between the Discovery Institute and a fundamentalist Christian organization is that the latter is honest about its goals and the former is not, as one can see if one examines their proposed textbooks for grade-school science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Amen, brother.
BTW, I've decided not to edit the page in order to preserve it an example of why Wikipedia is a great example of the destructive side of technology. There will always be a prevailing slant in Wikipedia towards the viewpoint of uncreative and unproductive people - because they are the only people who could possibly be bothered to "monitor" Wikipedia pages - creative and productive people don't have the time. Once before, I got involved in "changing back" a page that had been changed by an uniformed person whose "facts" came on a daily email from his "side", and I gave up because that uninformed person had far more time to be constantly changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:13, July 4, 2007
fundamentalist-themed films ?
this needs to be specified (with sources) or deleted. What fundamentalism? What themes? Are those themes exclusively fundamentalist? Very vague, OR and POV as it stands now. Northfox 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Golden Boy Promotions
Anschutz Entertainment recently purchased a significant (but not majority) share of Oscar De La Hoya's "Golden Boy Promotions.
23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat related, I'd like to see a cite on Anschultz's ownerships. I am pretty sure that AEG owns the Staples Center, where the Lakers play, neither Anschultz nor AEG have a stake in the Lakers.22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
if the foundation for a better life is totally funded by Anshutz, and the page is mostly cites from their site, and it fits right in with all his other funding operations, I think we should merge it into this. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- No to merger, they're not selling anything nore is the article The Foundation for a Better Life selling anything. It's a non profit.--IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 16:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment How is the source of funds relative to an article about The Foundation for a Better Life? They work in 200 countries around the world promoting generosity, hope, integrity, peace, and the like- shouldn't that be the focus rather than who funds them? Maybe funds deserves mention but it should not be the focus of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbetterlife (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)