User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

American Council of Trustees and Alumni

Arthur, we've had some discussions (and occasional disagreements) over neutrality of some content. My apologies if you're busy--if the "involuntary vacation" tag still holds, feel free to pass the football to someone else. I've recently come across several posts and edits that, in my opinion, are heavily promotional--either advertising or propaganda--and need not merely a correction, but some kind of an independent guiding hand to temper the reaction of the most frequent posters. One is the ACTA page where J.V. Martin has been largely removing all information critical of the organization, whether supported or not. Martin appears to be a person vested in the organization (irrespectively of his name similarity to the organization's founder, J.L. Martin) and has added several rounds of "corrections" based entirely on organization's promotional literature. I don't want to engage in edit war with him because 1) I don't believe it is productive and 2) I've observed the organization in action, including interactions between ACTA, NAS and the Federalist Society, first-hand and thus might be tainted by "original research". Note, in particular, that Stephen Balch, who is on the board of ACTA, is the founder and long-term president of the NAS. Conversely, J.L. Martin used to be a frequent presenter and panelist at NAS meetings. Both organizations have clear ideological bias that they try to hide with self-promotional platitudes. ACTA publications have been routinely cited for lack of methodological cohesion or even complete failure of methodology--e.g., Defending Civilization was little more than a cherry-picked collection of isolated, decontextualized quotations, set in an inflammatory framework.

My second observation involved the article on Grimsby Traditional Smoked Fish and several other articles where its author added a paragraph or two linking back to GTSF. The article reads like barely edited promotional brochure. It's not even a question of bias--it's a desire to sell the product. The only "external references" are to members of the Grimsby coop and the sole "news" article might have been placed advertisement as well (it's not entirely clear). I added some corrections in "Smoked Fish", followed by further corrections by others, but the main source remains largely untouched.

Again, my apologies if I am disrupting your regular activities. I hope your wife is better and you have time to help on this.

Please feel free to remove this post if you find it unhelpful. Alex.deWitte (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Respond on Talk:ITCZ ?

Talk:ITCZ ? 166.137.142.40 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Colony (U.S. season 2). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Focus (talk • contribs) 18:07, February 2, 2011

?

Hum...[1]...see the associated talkpage please.--MONGO 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Commented on talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth

Particle accelerator mishap may be unsourced but I've seen concerns in the newspaper regarding micro black holes and strangelets voiced by serious people about the Large Hadron Collider. Unless the content is obviously hair brained, which this one is not, serious editors have the right to require an edit summary and/or consensus for removal of content by anons. I consider myself a responsible editor when checking my watchlist and rc. I double check, go back in the article history before and after my revert and sometimes catch and revert my own mistakes, etc etc. I don't use automatic tools other than rollback. I take it slow. Each anon edit is a case by case basis judgement call. I've seen experienced editors, including admins incorrectly restoring content that was removed without explanation by anons just because all they could see in Huggle is: content remove without summary = vandalism = revert. I'm more careful than that. Unless the content is obvious nonsense I may, at my discretion require that an edit summary be provided for removal of content. SlightSmile 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Taxation Incidence

You have deleted my contribution without explanation. As a new contributor, I would be grateful for some hints to help improve my offerings. Paul Hield (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your contribution may be accurate, but it's unsourced. The rest of the section is also unsourced, but I think I could find sources for it, but not for yours. Please check WP:RS and WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right that it would no doubt be easy to find many text books outlining the argument deployed that taxation lowers wages and profits, but as I am trying to point out, the argument is incomplete because it only goes as far as removing money from an economy and does not take into account the most likely situation where the same money is spent again by government in which case the same argument (with which you take no issue) would have opposite consequences. The argument running in either direction is a matter of applying very simple logic to a set of idealised assumptions, not a matter of substantiated empirical research. The true consequences of taxation are much more subtle and difficult to discern and would indeed merit a whole host of references to sources. Therefore I believe that your removal of my contribution should be reversed, I shall do so forthwith.

Arthur, I have started a new section in Tax Talk, I would welcome your views on how to improve this section.

Kind regards - Paul Paul Hield (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas William Hungerford

I have created the article Thomas W. Hungerford. I will be adding material to it in the coming weeks, especially notability references. You may restore the links to this article if you wish.--Foobarnix (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hewitt

Is Untalker Hewitt, do you think, or one of his students, i.e. one of the people not allowed to edit the article per ArbCom? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The MO is a little different. If Untalker is a student, he's a student of paraconsistent logic, rather than of concurrent computation. On the other hand, I failed to recognize ResearchEditor's return as multiple 1-edit editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've added pending changes, so that might be enough, but if you see anything that makes you think it's someone who shouldn't be editing that page, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Amazon Rainforest, please.

Comment on Talk:Amazon Rainforest, please. 99.56.121.41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.83.114 (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

re Amory Lovins

Hi Arthur. What we have there is an editor who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia but is a professional and is trying to be cooperative -- see User talk:Camburns. So far his experience of Wikipedia has been very discouraging, unfortunately. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pirating of Wikipedia content for profit

I have encountered a publication being sold for $65 that contains content apparently all from Wikipedia. This sort of this tends to discourage editors like me. See User talk:Oldtaxguy#Pirating of Wikipedia content for profit. Can we do anything? Oldtaxguy (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

List of irrational numbers

One person is not a consensus, bright boy. It makes no sense to cram an theoretically infinitely large list into a slightly less theoretically infinite list. If you wish to get a third opinion, go do so, but try not to unnecessarily remove content from Wikipedia. There are several entries on the list of irrational numbers that are not in the list of numbers. Please do not destroy this information so recklessly. Hope you have a nice day! LutherVinci (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

ThreeTwo against you, actually (plus the editor who restored the redirect). Looks like a consensus to me. And, as you are the only source for the additional entries, as far as I can tell. You're welcome to merge those which belong on the list to the main article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Planetary management

Forgive me, I've lost track of the plot. Is this user trolling or is there a language barrier? Perhaps a little bit of both? Semi-protection might help, no? Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Communications difficulties ... See wide variety of article Talk pages and notes within View History of articles. 99.109.124.74 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if a language barrier, but the anon in question has been creating links to improve connectivity, regardless of accuracy or importance, for years. Recently, he/they has been WP:OVERLINKING, as well as creating easter eggs, and creating WP:REDLINKS to people and things he considers important, whether or not relevant to the topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Low-carbon economy

It seems you have reverted my edit on Low-carbon economy (discussion). Revision as of 12:34, 27 February 2011

The article did not contain any reference of decarbonisation, which can be a long-term process of a low carbon economy to a non-carbon economy or to a clean technology economy.

Please explain why you removed: "A low carbon economy can be an economy that is in the process of decarbonisation" ?

— RW Marloe (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

[[clean technology|decarbonisation]] is an easter egg, even if your definition of decarbonisation is accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right, on the basis of your emotional opinion or ideological view. Wikipedia is a fact based encyclopaedia.

Wiktionary: decarbonization and to decarbonize, is not a in-joke or buzzword, the definition is; An industrial process of technological adaptation or evolution. Which is not mentioned in the article. — RW Marloe (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Citing from the guidelines: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable"

Undicisettembre is a weblog held by a known professional journalist and hoax debunker, aided by professionals (engineers, pilots, firefighters, etc, as you can see from the blog description). The journalist in question has a debunking program on swiss radio and published several books regarding hoaxes. He's the main italian speaking journalist on the matter, and is present on the main italian and swiss networks when talking about hoaxes.

Furthermore, the second paragraph was sourced through the waybackmachine, it was not a blog entry.

Therefore, i'm undoing your deletion. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page.200.67.138.7 (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC) edit: sorry, it looked like i was logged in but clearly i wasn't.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall a weblog held by a well-known professional journalist as being allowed. I'll have to check on that. (Added: WP:SPS makes no mention of it.)

The fake engineer is synthesis; that he had been listed on their site is one fact (properly sourced to the archive listing), and that he doesn't exist is another. A separate reliable source has to note the anomaly. Not that I think there's anything accurate on their web site.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to substitute my opinion for Arthur's, but I do have something to say on the subject. Some "professional journalists" are "well-known" for their capacity to produce hoaxes rather than debunk them. And even people who are professional in one capacity, may well be unprofessional--and outright kooky--in another. This is not a reason to dismiss all their writing, but it is a good reason to be skeptical. Even if Wiki generally allows writing by "well-known professional journalists", this does not absolve them of responsibility to provide accurate information. Perpetuating known hoaxes and conspiracy theories falls well outside that realm. Consider, for example James Watson, who is a well-known professional researcher--a Nobel Prize winner, in fact. When it comes to matters of history of biology--or perhaps even some modern issues in biology--he can be trusted to provide an account that's worth consideration. But when he switches to racial theory, there is a problem--his occasional racist statements are well documented and indicate propensity toward racial bias. In any case, "may be acceptable" is a very low-pass criterion, simply indicating that some degree of original research is allowed for some people, but is by no means automatically acceptable. Even these "professionals" are not above review and revision. I am a professional researcher, with a background very similar to Arthur's. And occasionally I find myself going back to materials that I posted and asking, "How could this go up without documentation??" Arthur and I have clashed over issues of original research and bias on several occasions, but I would not take what he says lightly. IMO, on this issue, he's on the ball. Alex.deWitte (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived, and the article still states "unreliable sources". I modified the article to reflect that on one link the journalist himself is stating that he was the fake engineer. I just wondered if the "unrealiable source" has to stay there indefinetly, if i need to bring other sources claiming the expertise of Attivissimo in the hoax debunking field, or what needs to be done... thanks in advance. p.s. hope everything's fine with your wife, and good luck!Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There really should be a third-party reliable source for the information about the fake engineer, but if Attivissimo has the same credibility, as, for example, The Skeptical Inquirer, I'd be willing to accept it. There are some "Truthers" who might consider that questionable, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I’ll try Due to the very nature of conspiracy theories movements, though, the vast majority of stuff I have is from blogs or websites, since the conspiracy world has found a fertile terrain in the internet. No debates, no proof needed, etc. I’ll see what I can do. Thanks.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs

I notice that you're well on your way to an edit war regarding whether "United States" should be linkified on the article I mention above. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policy at Wikipedia:Linking#What generally should not be linked. --AdamRoach (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when I reverted the 99.* anon, it appeared he was linking United States, rather than unlinking it. May be a system error. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Iowacornfed

Has suddenly appeared - I doubt he is a "new user" (using "again" in an edit summary!) on the Charles Koch article. Collect (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Respect

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at PrBeacon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

here

Tag for automatic archiving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Footers

Hi, regarding this edit of yours I would like to inform you about WP:FOOTERS. With your edit you move interwikis away from other interwikis and above categories. The correct order is Defaultsort -> Categories -> Stub templates -> Interlanguage links. If you have questions on th manual of style please contact me. Wikipedia makes an effort to have interwikis (including those marked with Fa which means "featured article") together in order to be easily detected by interwiki bots and updated regulatory. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Following the template redirects is specifically discouraged by the guidelines. Keeping the interwikis together is an insignificant change which can be done automatically; following the template redirects is something that should not be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Koch & the Tea Party

Arthur -- I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so here are two more references, with video, of David Koch's organization Americans For Prosperity explaining to Koch himself how they've been organizing the Tea Party movement:

DeMelle, Brandon (October 13, 2010). "Koch brothers' Tea Party connections confirmed". Grist. Retrieved March 10, 2011.

Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 13, 2010). "Tea Party movement: Billionaire Koch brothers who helped it grow". The Guardian. Retrieved March 10, 2011.

(here's another ref)

I hope you'll agree that's sufficient to restore my edit, with those refs. --The Cunctator (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Grist appears never to have been reliable. If any reference to it is included in Wikipedia, and it's brought to my attention, I'll likely challenge it.
2. The Guardian reference says that the Kochs fund (and are proud of, but do not control, technically) AfP, and that "organisations tracking money in politics" call AfP a Tea Party organization. In a surprising (for a British newspaper) display of tact, the article carefully does not affirm that AfP is a Tea Party organization. It also contains an allegation of criminal activity: "Koch Industries has donated at least $5.9m to political candidates". Now, as we're not quoting that statement, we are not alleging criminal activity, so I suppose it's appropriate.
3. The WSJ blog entry (I don't see any evidence that it's supported by the editorial staff at the WSJ) appears only to quote the YouTube video, and the Fink restatement of Kochs' position doesn't appear to me to be a restatement. It doesn't actually say that the previous Koch/Fink press release was inaccurate.

Reference (2) does support the statement that the Kochs fund AfP, which is called a TP organization. If you want to contrast that statement to the one that the Kochs deny funding TP organisations, as the quote in the WSJ blog seems to report Koch commenting on the contrast, and a direct quote, even in a blog, is likely to be accurate.

You're welcome to reinsert a statement consistent with what is actually said in the articles. I don't consider it important to do so, but I won't remove a statement actually supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the problem that the articles don't have the explicit transcript of the video? Americans For Prosperity hasn't just been "called" a tea party organization, Americans For Prosperity explicitly promotes its organization of tea parties. (e.g. "Americans for Prosperity will be hosting the National Taxpayer Tea Party at the Capitol." and NJ Taxpayer Tea Party). Here, for example, is another news story: The state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the conservative anti-tax, smaller government group, is trying to get the North Carolina tea party movement organized. That's 30 seconds of googling. The fount is endless.

I'm not sure how to interpret this as anything other than supporting the tea party movement. It's certainly a fact that Koch claimed at one point that he had no connection to the Tea Party movement, but there's ample evidence against that claim, and no evidence to support it. Am I missing something?

Koch's denial of what is a prima-facie obvious truth shouldn't be in the introductory paragraph. --The Cunctator (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V are clear, as is WP:BLP. For added seasoning I recommenr WP:KNOW to cover your "prima facie obvious truth" comment. Collect (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I'm quite aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please believe me when I say that I have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the epistemological issues regarding contribution to Wikipedia.

While Koch is on record denying involvement in the Tea Party, he is also on record this year praising the Tea Party movement. Koch: "There are some extremists there, but the rank and file are just normal people like us. And I admire them. It’s probably the best grassroots uprising since 1776 in my opinion." Koch's statements about the Tea Party movement -- which are few and far between, and certainly without any sense that they should be considered statements of fact -- should by WP:NPOV not weighted equally with the documentary record in WP:RS about his support for the Tea Party movement.

Here are just a few more reliable sources that David Koch's Americans For Prosperity is a key organization in supporting the tea party movement: C-SPAN recording of the 2009 Defending the American Dream Summit, with David Koch and tea party organizers; C-SPAN recording of the 2010 Defending the American Dream Summit, with David Koch and tea party organizers; Tea Party: The Awakening; A New American Tea Party; Mad As Hell Sellout; Getting It Done; Common Nonsense ...

I hope this is sufficient evidence that my edit was well-founded, adhering more closely to NPOV than the previous version, and should not have been reverted.

p.s. One side note; I don't understand why Arthur thinks that the Guardian alleged criminal activity of the Kochs. It's entirely legal for corporations to contribute to political candidates, through political action committees. --The Cunctator (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable source notes that Koch approves of the Tea Party, that fact can be added. As hardly any of the sources you have ever provided are reliable, I'm not sure which one might do so. (As an aside, I wouldn't consider an "ambush interview" reliable, even if published in an unimpeachable source. I'm not at all sure that "Lee Fang" of ThinkProgress is a reliable source, to select your first supporting comment.) Even if reliable, it belongs only in Koch's and possibly the politics article, not in Koch Industries or Koch Family.

As for AfP supporting the Tea Party, the C-SPAN videos seem reasonable, if the information is actually there. However, supporting Tea Party organizations doesn't make it a Tea Party organization, unless a notable source makes the connection. You've misquoted a number of sources, so far, so I'd want a time-mark and quote. (I can't figure out how to search the transcript.) However, that belongs only in the AfP and politics articles, not Koch Family Foundations or any individual articles on the Kochs.

It's a matter of semantics, but a PAC is not the same as the sponsoring corporation; the corporation controls the PAC, but cannot contribute to it. We should make that distinction, even if the sources do not.

I'm afraid that, because of the number of clearly unreliable and misquoted sources you've supplied, I'm not going to take the time to check which of the new ones you've added might be appropriate. Any of your edits which contain a single misquote will be reverted in full. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to hear about your wife's surgery. I hope she's better. I actually am new to this and promise to cite every comment I make about this family. I'm still trying to figure out how to add footnotes. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyrantsalot (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yo, discussion there

You have some discussion at err... an article called "SATAN RITUAL ABUSE" (strange title huh?) 173.183.79.81 (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tax Incidence

Dear Arthur, would you please help me and in so doing help clarify the article. The latest edit which I added was simply to clarify that the tax taken was sum of the losses suffered by each part of the economy impacted by the tax. This is the point made in the second paragraph where the example of how a $0.50 tax is shared between the supplier and the buyer, the buyer pays an extra $0.20 and the seller loses $0.30, the sum being equal to the $0.50 tax imposed.

To allow the example but delete my edit, where I state that the sum of the losses is equal to the tax taken, appears to be inconsistent as, so far as I can tell, they make the same point.

I think your objection to my edit is that taxation causes greater loss in the economy than simply the sum of the losses as a direct result of the tax. I'm just guessing here so I may be quite wrong and be missing some other fundamental point.

Kind regards - PaulPaul Hield (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You were dead wrong about the HAARP weather control. Inventor's son.

In an interview, Robert Eastlund, the son of the HAARP technology inventor Bernard Eastland said his father intended HAARP to be used as a defense technology and to control weather in arrid places like Ethiopia to ensure a healthy environment. exact link of time mark 24:29 interview segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDfwHU7Cw6g#t=1469 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

9/11 terrorist attacks

Arthur: When you get a chance, can you please respond to the following post?[2] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it catching?

The same day I find two articles on this 2011 End Times thing, I find someone has created Alternative archaeology and tried to redirect Pseudoarchaeology to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called a WP:POVFORK. If you don't like an article, create another one with a different POV and similar name, and redirect the original article to the new one. It's done frequently, but it's usually caught. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Koch involvement in various organizations

Since you seem to be a major watcher/whitewasher of conservative articles, please explain this one:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&diff=418735163&oldid=418662266

The Koch name is all over that article, as founders, funders, board members, etc. Some of that applies to many of the other articles which were reverted. You admit to having a COI because of your own political POV, and maybe everyone does in their own ways, but it shouldn't cause you to remove information that is well documented. That's unwikipedian. Should we create a subcategory for the Koch family category that can include the numerous articles on subjects which the Koch family are heavily invested, control, or fund? Please provide a solution as a sign of good will. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Koch family was originally intended for members of the Koch family, not for the organizations. Some of the ones organizations you added would fit well in Category:Koch family foundations, but not all, and the boundary between those which are and those which aren't is difficult to determine. For instance, Armey's organization is no longer Koch's, and there is no current credible association between the Kochs and that organization. Those organizations which are still controlled by the Kochs might fit in related categories, but clear evidence would have to be provided for each in the article. It is absurd to say that the TPm is controlled by anyone, so it shouldn't be in any such category. "Support" or "funding" are inadequate to support categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind the subcategory question; I put AfP, CSE, and Mercatus Center back, but removed some others which had been there previously, where the connection seems too tenuous to categorize then as being associated with the Koch family. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that David Koch's funding the creation of the Tea Party is justification enough? What about his father's founding role in the JBS? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He didn't fund "the creation of the Tea Party", and I don't think it would be adequate if he did; and Fred being "one of the (12) founding members" of the JBS doesn't seem an adequate connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the original intended": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Koch_family&oldid=49307217 thus not what Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin states above. 99.112.215.201 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)