Talk:Koch network

Time for a deletion debate

Friends,

This page already has an obvious [[1]] violation.

It appears that this page was only created to coincide with well-publicized ads for a protest of the Koch brothers' political activities. On other Koch pages, Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, we have already had these same debates about what should be included. The Koch family is a very large one. Do you mean instead the Koch brothers? Well, there are four of them and they all have differing views. And what, if anything, does their deceased father's alleged views have to do with anything?

It looks like we just have one edit-warring administrator on this page. What say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletefeader (talk • contribs) 10:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is redundant. All of the material is covered by the individual entries of David and Charles. It is legitimate to have pages for each of their instituates and their company, and for each of the Kochs, but I don't see much use for this page other than a clearinghouse for people to find things to complain about. If there were a "political activities of George Soros" page, I would argue that it's redundant, and all the information should be relocated to the Soros main page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisor2011 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I endorse this line of thinking. The guy who created the page admits that there is no precedent for the page. Given the WP:NPOV issue, the timing, the lack of precedent, and the fact that all of this is duplicative, I think it is fair to say that this should be deleted. MBMadmirer (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I, too, endorse this line of thinking. The sources down below are similarly inappropriate. Wikipedia has already vetted those pages on the individual brothers' pages. We've got a POV fork here, gents. It seems that some editors and administrators would rather come here than talk it out on individual Koch brothers' pages. For that reason alone, this should be deleted.(PokingTocqueville (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

NB User:Deletefeader and User:PokingTocqueville have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Heinleinscat. Rd232 ^talk 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Both unblocked due to "false positive" and no negative connotations should be applied to either. Collect (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of this article, The Koch family's involvement has been covered by primarly liberal sources, yes. But did you expect this to be covered on Fox News? Or the Cato Institute? Why do we accept Cato without question, when it is directly founded and financed by the Koch Family? There is clearly a double standard. This article should not be deleted, but it should be expanded. McGlockin (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Related discussion (now archived) at Admin Noticeboard section on MBMadmirer & this article. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor now attempting to link Koch to Soros

This is an article about the Koch Family involvement in politics, it has nothing to with George Soros. All references to George Soros need to be removed. It's humorous how much the source [2] in question is being validated by the edits on this article. McGlockin (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what you said was a personal attack on me. Further violation will result in the deletion of your account. McGlockin (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Read the old talk pages. Statements were made about the Koch's which applied to a number of others, including Soros. As reliable sources make the statements, they properly belong in the Koch articles (and the Soros articles, if editors do so). See WP:RS. As for making accusations about any editors here, please be well-advised that such is contrary to WP:NPA, WP:WQA and other Wikipedia policies. If you wish to make an accusation, please be explicit with it. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You should be reminded that sock puppetry is a TOS violation.99.169.66.28 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have never run a "sock" I fear you are determined to seek a WQA notice. Are you asserting that I am a "sock" or are you just being a PITA? Collect (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor continues to make baseless connections to Soros. This is unrelated to the political activities of the Koch brothers, and not relevant to this article. Again, this is agenda driven editing, this violates WP:ORIGINAL attempting to link Soros conspiracy theories to legitimate Koch family political activities. 99.169.66.28 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Where a reliable source makes the connection, WP reports what the source says. Collect (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The source isn't making the connection, you are.99.169.66.28 (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the source: "For the left to characterize the Kochs’ efforts in the policy arena as self-interested is to misjudge the extent to which they are motivated by an intellectual belief system,” said the donor, “just as the philanthropic efforts of George Soros and Peter Lewis and others on the left are driven by their very different beliefs.” Sorry to have to point out the article to you. Collect (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says many things. George Soros isn't in the scope of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.66.28 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Add links to Global warming controversy and/or Climate change denial as the article only links to Climate change which is indirect.

Add links to Global warming controversy and/or Climate change denial as the article only links to Climate change which is indirect. Should at least link to Global warming, Environmental skepticism, Scientific opinion on climate change, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, or something related to opposition of Climate change mitigation attempts. 108.73.113.161 (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? We should only do it if a reliable source makes the connection, as our articles are not necessarily about the same thing as what the real world talks about. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of The Weekly Standard as a source for facts

I used The Weekly Standard as a source for the fact that Mayer used a "great deal" of research from the Center for American Progress for her lengthy story on the Kochs. We use ideological sources all the time in WP as reliable sources (such as The Huffington Post) and they are upheld as reliable sources at WP:RSN. Having a slant does not automatically disqualify a source. If it did, The New York Times would be disqualified. I'm not using TWS as a source for opinion, but a fact. A fact that is verified by the Center for American Progress itself. Drrll (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Difficult. I think the material should be added, if there was a reliable source. Unfortunately, both liberal and conservative blogs have reported that Obama is not a United States citizen, which would also be a question of fact. Blogs are not reliable sources, except, in some circumstances, where the blogger is reliable per se. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: the article could include "According to Koch Industries ..." text citing their official response to Mayer's article, which would clearly attribute POV regarding a statement about Mayer's sources. Rostz (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agee.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that TWS in general is a reliable source. The fact that the article in question is on a TWS blog is not, in my view, important since WP:IRS grants an important exception for blogs: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." While it is an outlet for opinion, it is also an outlet for news. I am amenable to using either TWS or the Koch Industries official response, mentioned by Rostz, as a source for this, given that the article is about the Koch family. Drrll (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Drrll is correct about the use of the TWS blog. However I disagree with his edit. Is it relevant that some of the research came from the CAP? If so, then give it a sentence of its own and explain why. Better yet, since the Mayer article is so extensive and is directly about this topic it might be worth devoting a few sentences to it, including the background and the responses to it. Just just adding, as an aside, that some research came from CAP isn't helpful to readers.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(Still disagree with citing TWS as a reliable news source; for what it's worth, even the National Review described it as a "conservative journal of opinion", according to the TWS article, which distinguishes it from traditional news sources that delineate news and editorial content. Controversial assertions require high-quality sources.) Rostz (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But is this a controversial assertion? The blog quotes the CAP blog, which makes the same assertion.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The CAP blog isn't a reliable source either. (It also gives undue weight to CAP.) Rostz (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The NeoCon The Weekly Standard? Excerpt from the wp article: Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute. Just curious. 99.19.46.177 (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft addition:

• According to Koch Industries, Mayer's article is based on unqualified and "blatantly and inherently biased" sources and material.

Rostz (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That works for me, although I would include examples, such as the CAP and Greenpeace. Drrll (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done & added. Rostz (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion on Talk:Koch Industries.

Related discussion on Talk:Koch Industries. 99.190.86.252 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unions

I fail to see any relevance whatsoever of the "Unions" section to the "Koch Family." It appears to be a Governor Walker coatrack with no relationship directly in any way to the Koch family. The Koch Family is not the Koch Industries PAC. The Koch Family is not a npc for free enterprise, neatly tucked in, which adsdvocated for a bill -- supported by Walker. Pure, unadulterated coatrack. Collect (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Add "... nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning."

Add "Charles and David Koch are called the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning." http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-berkeley-climate-20110331,0,2472031.story 108.73.113.16 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Koch's opposition to climate change legislation is already noted. At length. Collect (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a major part of their political activities, it should be included. Stop policing this article.99.169.66.28 (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That LA times article only mentions the Kochs in passing, I would not say that it is worth including. Bonewah (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this was deleted. It's a significant assertion about the political activity of the Koch family, the topic of this article. It's relevant, and well-sourced. I'll restore it unless a compelling reason for its omission is given.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Because, as stated above, the Koch's opposition to climate change legislation is already noted at length and the article in question isnt about the Koch's, and only mentions them in passing. Its amazing to me that you can post a reply directly below our rationale for removing something and then claim to not know why that very thing was removed. Bonewah (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for a policy-based reason, not just an argument. The source in question is about a climate-study funded by the Kochs. The comment in question summarizes the extent of the Kochs' activism in this regard. It's a reliable source and relevant content.

This material was also just removed without adequate cause: Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, has criticized the Koch brothers for their use of AFP to create a façade of grass-roots support for their favorite causes, a technique known as astroturfing. ref name="lipton2011"/ What policy reason was there for deleting that?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that everything should be included unless there is a rule that says it shouldnt? If so, I dont agree with that view. Id believe that you should provide your rationale for including something just as we have provided our rationale for its exclusion. Further i think you are trying to wikilawer us to avoid addressing our concerns, basic WP:CONSENSUS requires that you work with us in good faith and take our concerns into account, i dont believe you are doing that. Bonewah (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What are your policy-based concerns? I mostly see edit warring rather than discussion.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have stated and restated my concerns as well as Collect's concerns,if there is any lack of discussion here its your refusal to engage your fellow editors in consensus seeking dialog. Bonewah (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect wrote that "The Koch's opposition to climate change legislation is already noted". However the Roosevelt material goes beyond that, asserting that the Koch's are not just opposed, but are the leading opponents. That's a significant assertion and not contained elsewhere in the article. I don't see any discussion of the Common Cause material.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

<--od The LA Times article isnt about the Koch's, its about a scientist and his research. The article only mentions Koch because he funded part of the scientist's research. If you think we should include mention of the Koch funding of the research, that seems a reasonable discussion to have, but to take a single line out of an article that isnt even about Koch and argue that it should be included because it contains the claim that they are 'leading opponents' is an unbelievably weak reed on which to stand. Remember, reliability depends on context, in this case, the article is about the scientist and his research and so is presumably reliable on that topic. The article isnt about the Koch's and the mere fact that they are described in such a way is totally irrelevant. Bonewah (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

ACLU Donation

There are claims that Koch donated $20-Million to the ACLU. I removed this since the New York Social Diary can not be considered as a reliable source. http://www.lasocialdiary.com/node/125921.

"Since that post went up, I've been trying to confirm the donation with the Koch people, with the ACLU, and with the authors of those two publications. David Patrick Columbia of New York Social Diary, responded via email to say he can't remember the source of his report, though he did say he's certain that his source was not David Koch or George Soros (who was also named in the report for having given $10 million to the ACLU). I'm still trying to reach the editor of Faces of Philanthropy, which also reported the donation on its profile page for Koch, along with the additional detail of the specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act the donation was intended to help overturn." http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/28/update-on-the-kochs-and-the-ac

ACLU website makes no notice that this "donation" was ever made.

Rumors are not a sound basis for information included in this article. Calicocat (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Politico

This edit deleted material sourced to Politico, calling it "Tons of less then reliable sourcing".[3] Yet the same edit also added material sourced to Politico. So is it a reliable source or not?   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous edit. I have further edited the article to remove the rest of the politico references and more dubious claims. If you want to re-add them please take the time to discuss why this material should be included here before adding it back into the article. Bonewah (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your deletions. I'm not sure what you mean by "dubious", but that's not a Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for gay people

Why doesn't this article discuss the Koch family's efforts in support of LGBT people and LGBT rights? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources on the topic you can add something.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

New source

This should be a fertile source. (Haven't read it though.). Found via The Guardian. Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP and COAT issues

The recent sections of contention are problematic to say the least. The Free State Project is a clear WP:COAT issue and a severe WP:BLP issue. Unproven allegations have no place within BLP articles and this is nothing more than an attempt to smear the Kock family. The wording itself is a clear red flag regarding BLP problems.

The Margot Roosevelt quote is in a tangential article, and her personal smear regarding the Koch's is undue weight ad hominen attack against the Koch's. Just because some non-notable writer attacks the Koch's doesn't make it notable. It is a clear BLP violation.

The NY Times Atrotufing claim is almost the same as the Margot Roosevelt quote, albeit from a more well known source. In any case this claim is being presented as a factual statement (ie, the Koch's are creating atroturf organizations through AFP. This is nothing more than a unproven democratic talking point in an attempt to attack the Koch's. It is a NPOV as it is presented. This part could be readded, but re-worded to not make statements of a factual nature. Arzel (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Roosevelt quote is directly about the Koch's activism on climate change issues. How is it a BLP violation? Which section of that policy forbids including well-sourced, neutrally presented material that's relevant to the article in question?   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The information was properly sourced, so it can say they are idiots and be proper content. Arzel, you need to read BLP again. "Unsourced" negative content would be problematic, but that's not the case here. I would have no objections to restoring the material if opinions are attributed. That should take care of the only somewhat legitimate objection. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing is necessary for inclusion, but not sufficient. You guys are totally ignoring the concept of neutrality and undue weight, to say the least. I agree with Arzel that this article is being used as a coat rack, a way of including every negative assertion, every crackpot claim and theory and bad opinion about the Koch's. The Roosevelt quote is a glaring example of this, you cherry-pick the one line that you like out of an article that isnt even about the Kochs and stick it in this article with a "X person says Y about Koch" along with a host of other "this person thinks this and this person says this" etc etc. This isnt the Political activities of Koch, its a Criticism of Koch by another name. Bonewah (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A "coatrack" is an article which purports to be about one topic but is mostly about another topic. I don't see how comments about the Kochs' political activities could qualify as coatrack material.   Will Beback  talk  02:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This article purports to be about the Kochs' political activities, but is actually about every negative opinion, criticism and theory editors can dig up. For example, one could make the argument that funding a noted global warming skeptic is a Koch political activity, but you focus instead on the author's opinion that the Kochs' are "nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning". Instead of facts about the Kochs' political activities, you are using this article as a delivery system for opinions that suit your POV. Bonewah (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If those are views connected to the Kochs' political activities, then they aren't "coatracks". If there are other views about their political activities that aren't expressed then we can add those too. Also, please assume good faith. WP:AGF. Making claims about the motives of other editors is uncivil.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonewah, Will Beback is correct. You're misusing "coatrack". There is nothing of that happening, in fact the opposite. Exactly the part of the quote that is relevant and on-topic for THIS article is what's chosen. It's relevant. That's how we write articles. We document the facts and opinions that are expressed in RS and we put them in articles. It's definitely not a violation of NPOV or UNDUE to include what's on-topic. Keeping it out is whitewashing and we're not allowed to do that. Anything that's about the political activities of the Koch family is on-topic, and NPOV requires that criticism also be included. If it is kept out, then NPOV is being violated. As to their funding of a global warming skeptic, sure that's on-topic here. Put it in if it's in a RS! Go for it! At the same time any criticism of them for doing it is also supposed to be here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Weight is the overiding principle for what should be included. Simply being in a RS is not the ultimate criteria for inclusion. NPOV does not require minor criticism to be given undue weight to acheive NPOV. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Free State Project section is a coatrack. The article is not about the Koch's, it is about the Free State Project. The author alleges that the Koch's are connected. This is presented in typical WP:COAT fashion. Article about Y. Y is accused of being connected to X. X is doing this. This article is the Coatrack for the Coat of X. Not to mention that these are unfounded allegations in violation of WP:BLP. As for Roosevelt. Who is she? Is her opinion notable? She has an opinion, thousands of people have an opinion. Her opinion just happens to present an ad hominen against the Koch's. Thus we have a non-notable person attacking the Koch's, ie BLP violation and undue weight. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is this section? Those words aren't in the article. As for Roosevelt, it makes no difference. She doesn't have to be notable. It's an article (not a blog comment from a reader) in a RS, the LA Times. It's the RS that's notable. That article mentions the Koch brothers several times, and even links to an article about them which would also be a RS for information, possibly for this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. The source which was being used for the Free State Project is primarily about the FSP. The section is not currently in this article because I removed it as a coat and blp violation. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes someone's comments have to be notable to justify inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The mere fact that a comment appears in print somewhere does not automatically qualify it for inclusion. The minimum threshold for including something into Wikipedia is 'does including this expand the reader's understanding of the subject?' I dont believe that Roosevelt's comment does that in any way, and neither of you have attempted to explain why her comments enhance the article here, you merely declare that its notable, much like you simply declare that its inclusion is neutral and not undue. Simply saying that it is so does not make it so. Look, negative commentary is fine, so long as its actually relevant to the subject at hand. This article isnt simply a collection of everything anyone has ever said about the Kochs' political activities, show me that this particular comment matters, that isnt too much to ask. Bonewah (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt's opinion is just that, her opinion. Editors seem to be of the theory if someone presents their opinion that that opinion has to be included. As Bonewah states that is not the case. Yes, V has been met, but you still have weight concerns. Roosevelt is not notable, her opinion is not notable. Presentation of her non-notable opion is a violation of undue weight. Using undue weight on her non-notable opinion to attack the Koch's is a violation IMO of BLP. Arzel (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must say the two of you work well together to block any criticism. This matter is pretty serious, considering we've been dealing with paid socks who have been doing the same thing. An SPI uncovered a whole office of workers editing from the same IP and paid by a contract with the Koch brothers to edit the Koch articles, as well as Facebook, Twitter, etc.. I'm not saying you're part of that group, but you're certainly doing the same thing, and even more brazenly and openly. At least the IP socks were more discrete in their policy violations.

Will Beback, can you arrange an investigation? We also have other experienced editors who obviously do the same thing, including one admin. We need a lot more eyes on this situation. This needs to be dealt with at a much higher level since the Koch brothers are known to use big money to manipulate information about themselves, and their influence is felt everywhere, including here. There is so much criticism in RS, yet it's not allowed here using lots of subjective interpretations and wikilawyering. We don't write hagiographies here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Margot Roosevelt

There are too many separate issues to take them all at once. Let's use this section to focus on Roosevelt. Here's from a bio:

• Based in Los Angeles, Margot Roosevelt joined TIME in 1987 after 13 years as a staff correspondent at the Washington Post. In 1988 she moved from New York to the Paris bureau, where she spent six years covering European political, environmental, cultural and diplomatic stories. [..] At the Washington Post, Ms. Roosevelt served four years as New York bureau chief and three years as congressional correspondent in Washington. She covered presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns, as well as reporting out of Latin America and the Caribbean. As the paper's chief environmental writer for three years, she traveled widely and wrote front-page series on Antarctica, Alaska, and endangered species. [4]

She is clearly an experienced and respected reporter, with expertise on political and environmental issues. If anyone is competent to address the Kochs' political activity regarding climate change, Roosevelt is among them. In an article about one of the projects funded by the Kochs, she writes:

• Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning, the biggest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.[5]

That is a clear, direct statement on a relevant issue published in a respected, mainstream newspaper. It does not violate BLP, nor does it violate WP:COAT (which is only an essay anyway). Being the most prominent funders of the opposition to curbing the burning of fossil fuels is not necessarily a negative or critical remark. Every one of us burns fossil fuels every day, directly or indirectly, and if anyone tried to make us stop immediately we'd complain. So it's a neutral remark. The only other charge I see is that it violates WP:WEIGHT, part of the NPOV policy. I don't see how a single sentence on this matter can be excess weight. However, as a compromise to minimize it's apparent weight, I suggest merging it into the existing section on "Lobbying for oil, gas, and chemical industries", and tacking it into one of the paragraphs there. How's that?   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If she was that notable she would have an article here. The fact that she doesn't calls into question her point of view from a historical perspective. Her statement is nothing more than an ad hominen. Actually it is an ad hominen against The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study in order to invalidate their work. The article from which her statement comes is about The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, and she throws out this smear against the Koch's to say that the results of the study are worthless. This is a common problem on WP in general. Take a source that tangentally mentions the subject and use this source for an out of context statement. The source itself has nothing to do with the Koch's other than to use them to attack the BEST Study, ironic acronym to say the least :). I don't see any instance where this statement by her is appropriate here. Weight will be a problem regardless. Also, I don't see any reason to add it to the lobying section. We already have quite a bit from the enviornmental perspective. There is no need to pile on individual compaints. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that reporters be notable enough for an article in order to merit including them as a source. The assertion is simply stating a fact. Can you suggest anyone who is a more prominent funder of opposition to limits on burning fossil fuels? Why do you see it as a complaint rather than a statement? If someone writes that "Jones is the largest contributor to Smith's campaign" then that's not a complaint: it's a straightforward statement. This is likewise.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Who says it is a fact? Roosevelt? That article is not sufficient for that fact, that article does no research into this supposed fact. That article is using that "fact" as an ad hominen for the primary subject of the article. It is clearly undue weight and out of context to include a one-off statment from a tangential article. I am sure there are others that fund energy research that would meet your requirement, the only difference is that they have not elicited the ire of the left. However, I am not going to go down the logical fallacy well. Arzel (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that it's an opinion it's an expert opinion. Clearly, someone is the most prominent funder of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning. We have a source which says, reasonably, that it is the Kochs. I asked but you can't suggest anyone else. I don't think it's a contentious statement. No one has explained how it's a non-neutral comment either. Nobody is attacked by the assertion. Without any real policy-based reasons to deny this material, it's sounding like an "I don't like it" objection.   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will, I agree. Per my comment above in the previous section, we're seeing lots of subjective argumentation, wikilawyering with alphabet soup being thrown around, but a disappointing lack of policy-understanding shown by two otherwise experienced editors. The only explanation seems to be personal "I don't like it" reasons, and they aren't valid here. You are very correct. An investigation needs to be started and we need many more eyes on this situation. This is a serious matter. Wikipedia's integrity is being compromised on all the Koch articles, right at a time when we have a proven concerted and paid attack underway. I'm not saying these two editors are part of the paid group, but the effect is the same....a violation of multiple policies and a whitewashing of the Koch brothers. I don't think we're going to get anywhere since policy seems to be ignored and not understood. Another agenda is at work. Other eyes need to be brought in. How about AN/I and/or ArbCom, and include Jimbo himself? We need a high level investigation. This is much more serious than first feared. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of comments do no one service. I suggest you strike them as unhelpful to this discussion. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• One donor has had some climate bloggers up in arms: the man behind the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation owns, with his brother David, Koch Industries, a company Greenpeace called a "kingpin of climate science denial".
  • G2: Can these scientists end the war on climate change?: A group of scientists in California say they are about to reveal the definitive truth about global warming. Ian Sample talks to the project leader Ian Sample. The Guardian. London (UK): Feb 28, 2011. pg. 10
• Deepak Gupta, a staff lawyer at Public Citizen, said the "brothers have become a symbol of money in politics." "They have funneled tens of millions of dollars to groups that deny climate change and seek to influence public opinion on climate change, so that makes them a natural target of criticism," Gupta said. "There needs to be a real shake-up of public consciousness about their role."
  • Uncommon forcefulness from Common Cause Dan Eggen. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Feb 10, 2011. pg. A.17
• Wichita-based Koch Industries and its employees formed the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the panel, ahead of giants like Exxon Mobil, contributing $279,500 to 22 of the committee's 31 Republicans, and $32,000 to five Democrats.
• Koch Industries - which produces, transports and trades oil, coal and chemicals - has spent millions of dollars funding politicians, think tanks, foundations and political groups that have sought to either make the public doubt climate change or oppose climate change legislation directly. Koch has often been described as one of the country's largest polluters.
  • Environmentalists Who Spoofed Koch Industries Did Not Break Law, Should Not Be Identified, Public Citizen Tells Court Targeted News Service. Washington, D.C.: Jan 27, 2011.
• The Koch brothers have spent millions of dollars in recent years to dispute the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are responsible for ongoing climate change. They also fund various groups connected to the Tea Party movement, which last year galvanized conservatives to oppose health care reform and now backs candidates nationwide in Republican primaries.
  • Protest, profit from same hands? Brian Nearing. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Sep 11, 2010.
• Over the years, the Koch brothers have become leading financiers of "hard-line libertarian politics," investing millions to quietly push for reductions in personal and corporate income tax, social services, regulation and other policy positions that mesh nicely with the Kochs' business interests, the New Yorker reported.
  • USU business school courts billionaire ideologue Brian Maffly. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 6, 2010.

Those are just of a few of the articles which have highlighted the extent of the Kochs's contributions regarding fossil fuels and climate change. They show that Roosevelt's comment is not without context, or an extraordinary claim. We can present it as an attributed opinion. However we cannot omit it entirely because it's a significant point of view.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This smacks of original research. You have failed to address my basic questions with this end around to prove her statement correct. Her statement fails undue weight, pure and simple. The Koch's have been under almost continual attack from the left since the Dem's made them an easy whipping boy for their class warfare meme. To point to Brangifer, the only diservice on WP is the relentless political attacks on various WP BLP's. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will, very good stuff from numerous RS. BTW, on a personal note, I know you've been an admin and sysop for a long time, but are you also on the Arbitration Committee? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will resigned his admin "position", and, as far as I can recall, has never been on the ArbCom.

As for content, some of those tend to support Roosevelt's claim, but the claim is really not verifiable or controversial, and should be attributed. Unlike some of the claims from obscenely biased articles, it's relevant to this article, and probably should be included as attributed. However, the article should not be used in global warming articles or in regard the Berkely Group, as it does make controversial comments there.

As for Wikipedia, the sock puppet finding was reversed, and the paid "finding" was primarily only from biased articles, and the claim that whatever was done was against Wikipedia policies was rejected, apparently at a high level within Wikipedia. I don't recall the details, and I am not a checkuser, so I can't comment as to whether the reason for the sock puppet finding was that they were all editing from the same company's IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't resigned anything nor have I been a member of the ArbCom (thank God). I'm still just a low-level admin/janitor. I agree with Arthur Rubin that this should be attributed.   Will Beback  talk  10:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of WMC. My apologies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(No worries. It's easy to mix up usernames.)   Will Beback  talk  10:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I too support attribution. "When in doubt, attribute" is my motto.

As to the paid IPs, yes they were all editing from the office of New Media Strategies (NMS), a right wing firm under contract with the Koch brothers to make them look good. They admitted that. They all signed up here and some were caught editing improperly. IIRC, the inital mass block was overturned when they seemed to express willingness to abide by policy.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive
• http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/ (regardless of any minor inaccuracies in that article, it's still largely true, and what's going on here on this page will likely be included in future updates)

Brangifer (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that making the accusation that they were paid to edit any specific article would be on remarkably shaky ground after they were cleared of such an allegation. ThinkProgress may not be a reliable source in any event. Collect (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Article talk pages aren't the right places to discuss motivations, sockpuppetry, or other editor-related issues. Let's keep our focus on improving the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's more by Margot Roosevelt ... Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming: A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies April 04, 2011 Los Angeles Times. 99.119.129.56 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the same article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think? Didn't you read it before commenting? Berkeley scientists' climate data review puts them at center of national debate by Margot Roosevelt Los Angeles Times is the previous news, dated March 31st. April 4th is the follow-up article. 99.19.44.47 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

<--Nothing in her resume answers the relevant questions here, what do you suppose the reader gains by knowing that she described the Koch's as the most prominent funder of opposition to limits on burning fossil fuels? And again, the article isnt even about the Kochs, if your dying to insert this bit of editorializing, then the least you can do is find an article where the Koch's global warming political activities are the actual subject. Bonewah (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The "political activities of the Koch family" are the topic of the article, so political activities related to global warming are on-topic. Since there don't seem to be any policy-based reasons for the deletion of this material, I'm going to implement the compromise I proposed above. I trust that it will not start another round of edit warring.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing has been resolved here, why would you re-insert this material? And i cant help but notice how you have, once again, simply ignored my concerns. Bonewah (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to address your concerns, but I don't understand this most recent one. Are you suggesting that political activities related to global warming or fossil fuels are not relevant to this article's topic? Are you suggesting that we create a separate article for materials related to the Kochs' political activities related to global warming?   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight is a policy aspect for which you seem to be ignoring. You have not responded to my basic concerns above, so I will state them again. Why is her opinion notable from a historical perscpective such that it does no violate undue weight? Arzel (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

The Los Angeles Times is one of the leading newspapers in the U.S., and Roosevelt is an experienced journalist writing within her fields of expertise. What standard do you propose for including material?   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My concern is the same one you have been ignoring from the start, that the source of these claims, the LA times article, isnt about the brothers Koch, and only mentions them tangentially. The standard here is obvious, if your going to cite a source, that source should actually be about the subject at hand. Bonewah (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK so there are two concerns. Arzel is concerned about weight, and Bonewah is concerned about the relevance of the source. I've asked Arzel for more information on his view of the weight issue.

Regarding the source, the source in question is about a study paid for by the Kochs which has political relevance, so it's only a little off the topic of this article. The assertion is directly about the topic of this article. There's no rule which says that only sources which are about the subject of an article may be used. Please cite the policy language that gives that impression.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If you were to take Roosevelt's opinion only you might be lead to believe that the study was paid for by the Koch's. However, if you actually look at the BEST study you will see that the Koch's only donated part of the grant, and were not even the largest doner. One of the largest doners was Bill Gates ($100,000). I don't suppose you would say that Bill Gates is one of the most prominent funders of anti-global warming initiatives..would you? Roosevelt conviently leaves that out because it doesn't fit the left meme. Arzel (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in original research, just in summarizing what reliable sources say. Above, you said your concern is with weight. I asked above how that policy applies here. The sources, the L.A. Times, is a mainstream, large city newspaper. In other words, it's a prominent POV of the type that NPOV requires we include. You appear to be assertion that this is a fringe view which must be excluded entirely. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is rich, you throw out OR saying that the Koch's funded the study as showing relevance for this section and then claim I am providing original research when I show that you are wrong. FYI, everything I just put forward is already within existing RS's. I have shown quite well, that her opinion of the Koch's in this matter is undue weight. It is up to you to show that it is not. Just because the LA Times is a large mainstream newspaper doesn't mean that every single opinion one of their reporters has is notable (which is the case). In fact after reading up a little more on the BEST study from other RS's, her opinion of the Koch's regarding their funding of the study is even less notable and more biased than I originally thought. This quote is now even less likely to be acceptable, imo, than it I previously thought it would be. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

God, back to the wikilawering again? I dont see why we should have to keep stating and restating the same objections only for you to ignore and misrepresent them over and over again. Your belligerence in the is matter is both troubling and baffling at the same time. I agree that the study that was the subject of the LA times article is relevant to this article. I even invited you to write in a mention of the Koch funding for said study. But that wasent good enough for you. I agree that the claim that the Kochs are a major backer of global warming denialism is probably relevant enough to mention. I dont object to the passage we already have in this article that says exactly that "According to a Greenpeace report, from 2005 to 2008, Koch Industries and the foundations under its control donated $5.7 million on political campaigns and $38 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. The report also asserts that between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to "climate change skeptic groups",[27] Also according to that report, between 2005 and 2008 they gave nearly three times as much to such causes as Exxon Mobil, .." And do you know why? Because its fairly easy to make the argument that Greenpeace's opinion is at least of some relevance, if for no other reason than the fact that that report is cited in other reliable sources. Moreover, the report that we cite is actually about the Kochs supposed influence over the climate change debate, which is what ive been saying over and over again to no avail. What does saying it again add to this article? Why should we go on to say that they are the "nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning", especially when we say the exact opposite elsewhere: "with Jane Mayer stating that they are now so secretive that "they are not just undercover, but underground" Which is it? Are they the most prominent or so secretive that the are underground? Hell, quote [this article] for all i care, at least its about the Kochs' (although i think that Arzel's UNDUE concern has merit, which you havent addressed) So far you havent even tried to compromise here, all you have done is badger, exhaust, misrepresent and generally be unhelpful to your fellow editors. What is your obsession with this particular quote? Bonewah (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not "wikilawyering" to ask you to cite the policy that requires we omit this assertion. I have offered a compromise: to re-write the material and move it to a less conspicuous spot. Above, you wrote "The standard here is obvious, if your going to cite a source, that source should actually be about the subject at hand." What policy or guideline sets that standard?   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar discussion on Talk:Tea Party movement#Add Opposition to a nationwide trading system to curb carbon emission was a successful 2010 political platform point for Tea Party groups and their financers in fossil fuel industries.' 99.56.120.189 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

Her quote is undue weight. She is not well known from a historical perspective. Her opinion does not add anything of note to the article that is not already expressed in the article. Her statement in general is questionable at best since Bill Gates (whom is far more well known than the Koch's) was another large private donor. WP:NPOV is the only policy that needs to be stated. Presenting her quote is WP:UNDUE and violates NPOV by presenting a non-notable opinion prominently, and by over-presenting the opinion of critics as to futher unbalance the article against the Koch's. To a lesser degree it is a BLP violation since the statment is an ad hominen attack and is phrased to claim that the Koch's are one of the main pushers of allowing global warming. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? who says that Gates is a "prominent funder of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning"? If we have a source for that we can ad that to his bio. I don't see how it affects this article, one way or another.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is just it, none of it is relevant to this article. Gates was a huge donor to the same study. Gates ($100,000), Koch ($150,000). Roosevelt uses Koch's donation to this study as part and parcel to push that meme and throw out ad hominen attacks. Gates was also criticized, but simply not mentioned by Roosevelt because it didn't fit the left meme because Gates is a not a target of the left. A singular biased ad hominen attack from a non-notable reporter has no place for singular prominance in this article. It is clearly undue weight and in violation of NPOV. Until you can prove that it is not I see no instance where this quote belongs here. Arzel (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not writing about the study. That's a red herring.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the concerns raised. If there's nothing else I'll make a new draft along the lines of the compromise I proposed above.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving things about is not a compromise, just as obfuscation and distraction is not addressing concerns. All's youve done is avoid addressing our concerns and generally exhaust your fellow editors. Bonewah (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you or Arzel offered any compromise solutions that I've missed?   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed my concerns. Simply claiming that you have is not acceptable. Given your recent statements, further discussion with you seems pointless since you do not seem interested in discussion. Arzel (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiring PR firms to edit Wikipedia

I removed this whole section as the citations did not back up the claims being made. The politico article did not mention Wikipedia, MBMadmirer, or any of the claims in the section. The SPI cited was inconclusive and also did not back up the bulk of the claims being made. Further, Wikipedia itself should not be used as, at a minimum, it would be a primary source. Additionally, i see no indication that the whole MBMadmirer SPI drama is actually important enough to include in the article. Bonewah (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Los Angeles Times source

Add Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power: The billionaire brothers' influence is most visible in the makeup of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where members have vowed to undo restrictions on greenhouse gases. by Tom Hamburger, Kathleen Hennessey and Neela Banerjee Los Angeles Times from February 06, 2011. See connection to Politics of global warming (United States), and current news Portal:Current events/2011 April 6. 99.181.158.254 (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You're attempting to use the subtitle to support something. Subtitles may even be worse than titles. (The LA Times web site produces more than half the content as targeted ads, mostly anti-Koch and sufficient to ban the article under WP:ATTACK if they were actually part of the article. I missed the actual article, the first time I read this.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You lost me, what are you writing about ... ??? 99.181.155.158 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Replaced Special:Contributions/99.56.120.189 comment written over by User:Arzel.

Similar discussion on Talk:Tea Party movement#Add Opposition to a nationwide trading system to curb carbon emission was a successful 2010 political platform point for Tea Party groups and their financers in fossil fuel industries.' 99.56.120.189 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC) ... see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family&diff=423699862&oldid=423698278 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC: "the nation's most prominent funders"

Margot Roosevelt wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the Koch brothers are "...the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning..."[6] Shall we include this assertion in the article?   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

• This is a unexceptional view which appears in a mainstream source, written by a journalist working within her fields of expertise. It is relevant to the topic of the article and devoting a short sentence to it would not be excess weight. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view, and this seems to qualify.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• It's an exceptional view, but it still doesn't seem WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• NO This is Undue Weight from a non-notable reporter. Her statement comes in the form of an Ad hominen attack of the BEST study. The article being used for this statement is unrelated to the Koch's. Additionally, this is a mallformed RfC and should be removed for the leading nature of Roosevelts notability. Arzel (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that this supposed notable reporter on Global Warming and/or Green House Gasses is not apparently notable enough to even be cited within the articles here for which she should be most notable. She isn't being used in Global Warming, or the Politics of Global Warming, or the BEST study. If she is such an expert in this field then why are her views not being used within the articles most suited to her expertise? Arzel (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• No Pure opinion without factual basis given. And the author is not notable in the realm of having such opinions. Collect (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• NoI dont think this is an exceptional view, but i think we should find a source which more directly supports the claim. The LA Times article in question isnt even about the Koch Brothers, they are only mentioned in passing. If this view is unexceptional why not use one of the other articles that confirms that claim, an article that speaks directly to the Kochs' prominence as funders of global warming skepticism. I also think there are wp:undue concerns here, but addressing my concerns, or at least explaining the resistance to using another article would go a long way to establishing some kind of compromise. Bonewah (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Well I've created a stub (Margot Roosevelt) to help answer the question "who she? and why should we care what she says?". Given her experience and expertise, her opinion that the Kochs are the most prominent of funders is certainly relevant. Remember, this is not a factual claim about the Kochs being the largest or most significant funders or anything like that; it is about prominence. Roosevelt is well-placed to judge that, and her opinion on that is significant. Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • As noted above, we claim in the article that they are the opposite of prominent, claiming that they are "so secretive that "they are not just undercover, but underground". Bonewah (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "So secretive" is from a different source, and relates to their support for libertarianism. Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I added to that article. Her most famous piece was on Pirates of the Caribbean 2 promoting smoking, as far as I can tell. Her society background is impeccable. Collect (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a cute way to demean a respected journalist. It's just your opinion, but it's cute. Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• YEs for reasons given by Will Beback. Los Angeles times is a notable source. Kochs are influential and well known. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So any article that mentions the Koch's that is from an RS, even those articles that have nothing to do with the Koch's (like this one) must be included because the Koch's are well known and influential? If that was the case this article would be a book. Arzel (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any reliable article or book that mentions the topic of this article may be used as a source for relevant content. This point was raised before and I asked for a citation or a policy or guideline to support Arzel's interpretation, but I don't believe any was ever found.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:sources is a good place to start: "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." In this case, the article is not appropraite to the claims made as the article isnt even about the claims. wp:IRS has this to say "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." (emphasis mine). Also from IRS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Just about everything under wp:COMMON would seem to apply here, but "Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or even that it is explicitly permitted, that doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation." stands out. Again, for the Nth time, if Roosevelts opinion is so widely held, then it should be trivial to find/use another source, or at a minimum explain why you are so resistant to do so. Bonewah (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We haven't decided how to present this assertion, so the quote from wp:sources is irrelevant. If we end up misrepresenting the source then it would be a problem. I don't see anyone saying that the L.A. Times is an unreliable source, so the WP:IRS quotation seems off-topic as well. If that is the assertion then we can take this to the RSN. As for the idea that we need multiple sources for every assertion, that's not in any policy. Overall, the idea that we can only use a book or article if it is specifically about the topic of a WP article is absurd, impractical, and contrary to common practice.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And once again, I answer your questions while you totally ignore mine. Why the insistence on this one particular source? Your refusal to engage in productive dialog is bordering on tendentious Bonewah (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are asking me to prove something I've never asserted. I've never said this is a "widely held position". I've said it's unexceptional. There are many sources which discuss the Kochs' funding of opposition to curbs on fossil-fuel burning. This source draws a conclusion that they are the most prominent such funders. That's legitimate for a journalist to do.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated several times, the LA Times article is not being used to make that conclusion. The author simply made that statement as an ad hominen attack against the BEST study as a way to discredit the study by using the Koch's as boogeymen. Context is everything. Arzel (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand that comment at all. A reporter of the Los Angeles Times wrote an article, their editors reviewed it, then their publisher printed it. So if we cited the article then the newspaper and the reporter would would be its source. Nobody has proposed adding assertions about the study.   Will Beback  talk  03:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. You want to pull an out of context unverifiable quote from an unrelated article by a lergely unknown, non-notable reporter and put it into this article in violation of undue weight. Arzel (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's verifiable. Go the Times' website or to a library which collects it. These objections are getting stranger and stranger. Anyway, I suspect that the involved editors have said enough.   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course that she said it is verifiable. I mean the quote itself is unverifiable as a matter of anything other than opinion. As such what is the point of including the opinion of largely unknown reporter who is not even regarded well enough to have her opinion included in articles here to which by her background they would likely to have been included. The out-of-context aspect is that the article had nothing to do with the Koch's. Arzel (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times is a sufficiently reputable source for an assertion about the identity of most prominent contributors to a cause. If you think that it is not then maybe we should take a side trip to RSN. But in the past the LAT has always been found to be a reliable source. The suggestion that it isn't is a bit absurd.   Will Beback  talk  19:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I will ignore further absurd arguments like that. I have never said that the LAT was not an RS, and it is quite obvious what you are trying to do. Either respond to my basic concerns or do not respond at all. Arzel (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

Weak support for Qualified Inclusion Explination - Having never heard of the Koch brothers, I did a little research to try and get a feel for thier position on Global Warming. I wasn't able to get many high quality RS here. Most of what turned up were op-eds, or liberal leaning sources (see below).

New York Times (op-ed) "has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers — who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted"

Salon (op-ed) "they only fund climate change deniers and people who argue for policies that would make the Kochs richer"

The Guardian (op-ed) "from the birth of the Tea Party to undermining unions in Wisconsin, to opposing efforts to curb global warming"

CBS (op-ed) "US backers include Koch Industries (best known for its stealth attacks on the federal government, and big spending on climate-change-denial campaigns)"

The Montreal Gazette "Koch brothers, the straight talking conservative U.S. billionaires, put up a bunch of money to discredit climate change science in a potentially major way"

Given these sources, I agree with Will Beback that the viewpoint being expressed by Roosevelt in the offered quote is not exceptional, and probably represents a mainstream viewpoint (or perhaps a left-leaning mainstream).

Regardless, I really dislike the practice of quoting directly from Op-eds. WP should not be a mouth piece for op-ed columnists. I think in this situation, the ideal solution would be somekind of weaselly language like this -

"A number of commentators have pointed to the Koch family as major contributors to the climate-change-denial movement"

We could include cites to some of the pieces above. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Include This is a factual statement from a reliable source. If it is wrong, then editors must find a source that contradicts it. It is not even controversial. TFD (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a factual statement, it is an opinion. It is controversial because it implies that Koch's are actively promoting global warming through funding of the BEST study. Arzel (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Include. Well-sourced. — goethean ॐ 21:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • comment: preceding editor may not be "uninvolved" per an edit summary specifying that Koch's views are crazy. [7] Collect (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The editor hasn't edited the article or commented previously on the talk page. He may be involved in other articles, but that's neither here nor there.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• No, this seems to be a opionin of the journalist, not a fact with evidence. As such it shouldnt be included as fact.Obsidi (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Obsidi! — goethean ॐ 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, According to her bio Roosevelt was the chief environmental writer for the Washington Post and Times before joining the LA Times in the same capacity so her credibility is worthy of mentioning. The fact that the LA Times is also a respected media source should also enhance her credibility. the quote however should be placed in the context of the Koch brother's support of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project and further evidence of financial support should also be included. Philreinhart (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  That's her self-written bio, but otherwise, a sensible statement, although I do not agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Philreinhart! — goethean ॐ 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• RFC Comment: Here is another source which states: "A leading climate sceptic patronised by the oil billionaire Koch brothers ...". In other words, they've been caught funding climate sceptics and WP:RS have reported on it. Regardless of the exact wording, I clearly feel that the article content should reflect this in some way. --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article already makes that conclusion. Thanks for providing a good example of why the quote for which the RfC was started. What makes guardian comment less notable than the Roosevelt comment? As I had stated earlier in the discussion, many reporters have been making these kinds of ad hominen statement. It is undue weight to give prominence to any one specific reporter from a historical perspective, especially this one, who is largely unknown. Arzel (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, in fact I realized that a moment after I entered my comment above. However the article now presents a Greenpeace report, with attribution, on this effect and I think using the source we're discussing in this thread we could well go a bit further than that by saying e.g. that they've been described as leading funders of climate-change deniers. That is, in addition to the Greenpeace material. --Dailycare (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are conflating two areas of climate-change denial and the effect of humans on the climate. Furthermore, just becuase the Koch's fund research on the climate doesn't imply that they don't believe the climate is changing. I think most rational people do believe the climate is changing and has been changing...always. In anycase this source could never be used for such a statement. The article has nothing to do with the Koch's and the study is completely indepentdent and has also been majorly funded by Gates. Additionally, Ad Hom attacks should never be used for factual statements of a BLP nature. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by "climate change denial" it's usually meant denial of the fact that humans are a major cause of the now ongoing change in the climate and it's also what's under discussion here. Your point that the LA Times article would have "nothing to do" with the Kochs is transparently wrong since the article makes a specific point concerning them, namely that they "are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning". So this source could be used for a statement along the lines of "The Koch brothers are considered to be key funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning", which would sit will in the Greenpeace section. Also the Guardian source mentioned above can be cited. --Dailycare (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that that research was funded by a very bipartisan group. There is no evidence that that study is a climate denial study...unless you think Bill Gates is a Climate Change Denier. Also, you are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The article does make a specific ad hom against the Koch's in order to negate the study, but the article is clearly about the BEST study. To claim otherwise is to be disingenious. Arzel (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of both the original topics and further collaborating articles written. LA Times is highly reliable. BelloWello (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the article and see that it was not about the Koch's? Arzel (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I did read the LA Times article and disagree with your analysis. BelloWello (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So you read the article and still think it is about the Koch's? You can disagree with my analysis, but you can't simply make up your own facts. Arzel (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of both the original topics and further collaborating articles written (as with BelloWello). All of the sources mentioned as "most of what turned up were op-eds, or liberal leaning sources" would be reliable on most any other issue. To reject these sources as "left leaning" would be as un-wiki-like as asking "is it true or not whether the Kochs fund climate-change deniers?" The only aspect of "truth" or "fact" of relevance is whether reliable sources have in fact reported this aspect of their activities. Allreet (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OpEds are not reliable when referring to living persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, sensational and not backed by anythign other than the authors opinion. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: this user's second edit, on 13 April, was to remove sourced material about Koch lobbying [8] from Koch Industries. Rd232 ^talk 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment: whats that got to do with this discussion? ZHurlihee (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The point, I believe, was raised on the issue of being an uninvolved editor. Allreet (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

What is the status on

The Los Angeles Times has called Charles and David Koch "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil fuel burning".

? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what we're discussing in this RfC, though the exact wording hasn't been decided. If you are the same editor as 99.56.120.189, etc., please post your comment in the "involved editors" section, if not then use the other section.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect - I've posted a note at Talk:Margot Roosevelt#Movies That Blow Smoke concerning your assertion about her most famous article. I'm not sure how that's really relevant here - is the point to impeach her credentials as a journalist?   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was an attempt to establish her as a journalist. All else I could find was pretty much Social Register stuff. Collect (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? Maybe brush up those search skills, because searching WP is an obvious thing to try. Rd232 ^talk 01:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that search. I was not sure how to do that. It does, however, show without much of a doubt that she is not regarded as an expert source for anything within WP. She is used 6 times total, and the only one that is remotely related is from Hydrolic Fracking. There is certainly no evidence that she has ever been used as the primary source for anything related to CO2 emmissions. Her opinion has never been used before, and it is clearly undue weight to use her opinion on such a high profile article which already has several well known entities espressing their opinion. There are far more notable people in this field whom should be considered for their opinion before she. Arzel (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement that reporters be recognized as experts by Wikipedia in order to use their articles as sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is getting very difficult to assume good faith with you. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would you say that? I'm acting in good faith here, and haven't given anyone reason to think differently. In any case, if you have a complaint about my editing then this isn't the right place for it. Let's keep out focus on the content.   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Because one of your primary arguements is that she is an expert in this area and her opinion is notable. Yet you have yet to address the many instances where it is plainly clear that she is not regarded as an expert, and her opinion in this area is not commonly regarded. If your measurement for inclusion here was used across the board then this article would be littered with quotes from minor reporters. Basically your approach is anything anyone says about the Koch's must be included, when you know that this is WP:NOT what WP is about. Arzel (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Assume good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.143.101 (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, you appear to have misinterpreted my words. I said she's working in her field of expertise. She had been a political reporter (and bureau chief) for many years and is now an award-winning environmental reporter. So politics and the environment are her "beat". I have certainly never asserted that everything said about the Koch's must be included. However I am dismayed by the extent of opposition to this innocuous assertion.   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I only pointed out the logical conclusion to your statement, please do not take my comments out of context. I am dismayed at these continued attempts to paint the Koch's as some nefarious group hell bent on causing global warming. If this "innocuous" ad hominen is included you will have opened the floodgates to forced inclusion of every single quote any single reporter has made regarding the Koch's. I am further dismayed that editors seem to be ignoring one of the core principles of WP:WEIGHT. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The material is well-sourced and neutral. It is not an extraordinary claim requiring an exceptional source. The Koch's are known for making large political contributions and for specifically making contributions that would benefit their industry. It is not an ad hominem attack to state that they are the most prominent opponents to certain kinds of regulations or laws. It's directly relevant to the topic of this article.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral? Are you serious? Again you ignore my comment, and disregard that this statement was an ad hominen attack in order to disregard the BEST study. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying they are "promoting global warming". They believe that global warming is a hoax and therefore are lobbying against curbs on CO2 emissions because they believe the emissions are harmless and attempts to curb them are economically damaging. TFD (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite for what you "know" about their beliefs? Near as I can figure, the money is going to an independent group which has no such "beliefs" in any case. But I would loive to see the cite where they say CO2 does nothing. I do grant that they believe that the benefits do not justify the costs according to their statements, but I do not find the rest of your claim cited anywhere. Especailly the claim "they believe that global warming is a hoax." But heck -- maybe you "know" something not in the cites furnished so far to justify that particular claim. Collect (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not WP:KNOW what they believe, but assume good faith and assume they are not lying about their beliefs. TFD (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you glean all this from Ms. Roosevelt's passing comment in the LA times? Or is there, perhaps, another, more in depth article dealing with the Kochs and global warming specifically? Bonewah (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

LA Times

There seems to be a lot of arguing that since the LA Times is a RS that the preceeding source must be included. I would like to point out the at the RS'ness of the LA Times is not in question. The fact is that this particular article is about the BEST study. The author uses an Ad Hom attack in order to negate the findings of the study by tying the Koch Foundation to the funding of the study, while ignoring that a Bill Gates's Foundation donated a similarly significant amount to the study. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

mmmhm. Paragraph 6:

Muller said Koch and other contributors will have no influence over the results. "We have no prejudice, no preconception of what we are going to get," he said, adding that the Koch donation was less than the $188,587 contributed by the federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Muller is a senior scientist.

Berkeley + Koch = 54% of the study's funding;[9] the article mentions the two leading donors. Rd232 ^talk 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This Richard A. Muller? 99.112.213.121 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gates foundation gave $100,000. Koch foundation gave $150,000. Unless some of the editors here are willing to say absurdly that Bill Gates doesn't believe in Climate Change I am going to have to call BS on this whole thing. It is clearly nothing more than political hay, and disgusting that so many WP editors seem more intent on promoting political points of view than actually creating a useful neutral encyclopedia. Arzel (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The RFC is about using a quote about the Kochs from a respected reporter on a subject she is well familiar with; the quote happens to be from an article about the BEST study (a study which incidentally seems to be supporting the scientific consensus, I believe). How we get from there to complaining about Bill Gates is a bit of a mystery. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The complaint is that the articles are not about the Kochs, and could only rationally be considered about the Kochs if the reporter were unaware of basic facts about the subject of the article and Bill Gates. The comment about the Kochs is irrelevant to the article, making one wonder what the reporter's motive was in including it. If Arzel is correct as to motive, the article is not a reliable source for the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"The comment about the Kochs is irrelevant to the article..." - a statement so patently ridiculous that you really ought to hang your head in shame. Rd232 ^talk 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the bloody article. It's a throw-away line, given that Koch's funding of the group is not notable, except in the view of those who think there is no need for verification of the badly maintained temperature data. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Koch's funding of the group is not notable" - the article itself quotes a scientist complaining about that funding source. Are you really keeping a straight face while writing these comments? Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If this claim is widely known or extremely noteworthy, we should have no problem documenting it elsewhere. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

LA Times is RS, the information is verifiable, therefore there is no problem, in my view, with using it and mentioning it in the article. What Bill Gates has or hasn't done has no bearing on this question. --Dailycare (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding the distinction between WP:verifiable (i.e., we can all see the reporter said it), and wikt:verifiable (i.e., that the statement's truth or falsity could be determined, given time and resources). It clearly satisfies the first, but not the second. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's in the article as an explicitly attributed opinion of a respected source, the first is all that's required. Wikipedia is not a fact-checking service (WP:OR). Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No. We can report it as an opinion attributed to the journalist, but not as a statement of fact, as was done at one point in this article. I'm not sure it should be in the article at all, but certainly not as unattributed.

More to the point, it should not appear in any other global warming articles, as has been requested by the 99.* anon. It's only relevant here, at most. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see the first sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If RS say something, then we include it regardless of whether some editors feel it's "true" or not. --Dailycare (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have the same misconception of WP:V as others have; relevance is also required; some say the relevance of the source to the subject of the article, not just the relevance of the source to the statement and the statement to the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't "disqualify" a source that contains relevant material based on arguments that relate to other material the source contains. The statement is clearly in-scope of this article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the line is not about the subject of the article, it's less likely to be fact-checked. Sources are not reliable in themselves, but are reliable for certain statements. I would certainly argue that a throw-away comment on a subject tangential to the subject of the article is less likely to be fact checked, and more likely to be the writer's personal opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This gets back to one of my main objections. If a throwaway line in an article from a non-notable reporter within this field (she has is not even quoted in GW articles), is deemed to be forced in because the article is from an RS, then there is no stopping what can be forced into any article. I could go and add every single statement any single person ever said about the Koch's if WP:V is the only basis for inclusion. WP:WEIGHT is the deciding factor. Arzel (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, can you cite a policy to support your argument on "less likely to be fact-checked"? I think the idea behind the concept of RS is that well-known, professional and respected information outlets are just that. Arzel, this isn't just about the LA Times article since other sources have also been provided to similar effect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Add http://www.scientificamerican.com/jun02011/muller-hearing Richard A. Muller recent controversial "preliminary" United States House of Respresentative results testimony? 99.181.149.175 (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Kochtopus ... in BBC, others

Regarding deletion of The BBC and ABC reported the name the White House had named the Koch Brother's lobbying outfit: "The Kochtopus, a nod to the fact that its tentacles spread well beyond the realms of business."[10] [11]

Some US media have dubbed the firm Kochtopus, a nod to the fact that its tentacles spread well beyond the realms of business

Add Kochtopus nickname. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't put reflist into the talk, it will cause weird problems. That term is being used as a deragatory term and a violation of BLP. Also, the hungrybeast source is not available to most people in the world so unusable. Also, the BBC did not say that the White House made any such comment, the BBC did say that bloggers on the left have been using it, but that is hardly notable. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Octopus and Koch "derogatory"? 99.181.134.149 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungry Beast seems perfectly available, but surely not a reliable source. The BBC source itself is fine, but I'm not sure it's enough to justify inclusion. Rd232 ^talk 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried the hungry beast link and was told I had to reside in Australia..? Arzel (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh right. That's true of the video content, yes - I didn't see that before. Rd232 ^talk 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly more: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/examiner-opinion-zone/year-inside-kochtopus , The Economist Title: The Kochtopus http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/08/americas_second_biggest_private_company , the Jane Mayer New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer , etc ... 108.73.113.246 (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To IP99 anyone else. Koch is pronounced Coke. There has been no shortage of those on the left that would pronounce the name Cock. The clear corollary here is that Kochtopus would be pronounced like Octopus thus....Cocktopus. It doesn't take much insight to see what anti-Koch activists are trying to do with their naming convention. The Koch brothers are being attacked on a pretty consistant basis by the left blogosphere, lets not bring those attacks here. Arzel (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, and the sources are not anti-Koch activists. If this term is part of the culture, even if some, it should be included in Wikipedia. To not include the term could show a bias. 99.112.215.30 (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The term encourages a mispronunciation of the name. Because of that, I'd lean to exclude it unless it's so widespread that it's unavoidable, which does not seem to be the case. Rd232 ^talk 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a pronounciation guide avoid the potential for mispronunciation of adding -topus to Koch? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because then the term doesn't work (doesn't rhyme with "octopus"). Rd232 ^talk 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to rhyme? Something that doesn't rhyme is Kochblock for Cockblock, per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cockblock&diff=next&oldid=419159933 108.73.114.19 (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to remove that absurdity from that article. "Kochtopus" still doesn't belong here, but neither does "Kochblock" belong there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Absurd" is an extremism, please tone it down. 99.19.45.38 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is The billionaires bankrolling the Tea Party. an "opinion" or not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html The billionaires bankrolling the Tea Party, by Frank Rich in the New York Times, August 28, 2010.99.109.124.16 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Frank Rich is an OP-Ed columnist. From the relevant policy Reliable Sources, statements of opinion:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

And if you were to ask, no I dont think Rich's opinion is especialy notable here. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Frank Rich is one of the best known columnists writing about politics today. Why would his opinion be non-notable?   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. It's a purported fact, rather than an opinion, so only clearly reliable sources are allowed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What's a fact? The only issue here seems to be whether to use the source, and if so how. Rich is a notable commentator. Which fact/opinion in the column are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Never mind"; I was reading the article title as the text supported. Still, what text is this being used to support? I agree it's a notable opinion, but Rich has been used to support purported facts in this article, and other articles about the Kochs. For that purpose, it's not usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has wandered from the original question: "is the article an opinion or not?" As an Op-Ed piece the obvious answer is "opinion". ZHurlihee replied that it was a non-notable opinion, and I disagreed about the notability on the general point that the writer is a prominent columnist. Nobody has suggested actually using any part of this.

The 99.109 editor likes to post links to new sources as section headings, which I find annoying but it's harmless and potentially helpful. However the ensuing discussions, like this one, have often been unproductive. I suggest that in the future we don't need to respond to the posts. We can just treat them like helpful links to potential sources and either use them or ignore them. Responding to every entry like this, when no text is proposed, is like shadow boxing.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a critical opinion from Rich, which is not suprising given his poitical views. WP is not a newspaper, and Rich's attacking opinion violates NPOV and undue weight. This disturbing trend to automatically include critical attacks within BLP articles really needs to stop. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So your stance is not only that the Koch brothers do not fund right-wing political groups, but that saying so is an attack? For people living on planet earth, this is a well-established, uncontroversial fact. — goethean ॐ 15:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rich is a left-wing opinion writer trying to degrade the TP movement by saying it is not a grassroots organization because he thinks it is being funded by the Koch's. This type of political mileu has no place in BLP articles since the only purpose is to attack. Arzel (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that anyone would seriously deny that the Kochs fund right-wing political groups. It is not an attack, it is a simple observation. A more pertinent question is why some are dedicated to mis-characterizing the observation of undeniable facts as an attack. — goethean ॐ 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the relentless attacks from the left it is not suprising that like-minded people would think that this is all they do. Please do not act naive, the subtle arguement being presented, as I stated in my previous comment, is that Rich is trying to degrade the TPM as nothing more than an astroturfed movement paid for by the Koch's et al. Editors, such as yourself, happily agree and promote those same opinions. This is a BLP article, leave out the left-wing BLP attacks. Arzel (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an opinion, so it should only be used to support opinions, not purported facts. There's a different between an opinion (R thinks K is a jerk) and a purported fact (R thinks K is a mass murderer, or R thinks K supports the ACLU). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I inserted it as an opinion, but it was of course immediately removed accompanied by Arzel's meritless 'argument' above. — goethean ॐ 17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not very civil of you. I had a valid reason, you just don't like it. Arzel (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You (Goethean) apparently didn't read my examples. What you wrote was a purported fact, rather than an "opinion". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with these inaccurate descriptions of the difference between fact and opinion.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

However, WP:BLP does support that difference between fact and opinion. Furthermore, I have doubts about it being a notable opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You (Goethean) apparently didn't read my examples. What you wrote was a purported fact, rather than an "opinion".

...and you apparently didn't read the text which I attempted to insert into the article which redundantly called attention to its status as opinion, (but which of course was immediately removed anyways and for no valid reason). — goethean ॐ 02:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I don't see the word "opinion" in WP:BLP. Could you please excerpt the text to which you're referring?   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are we deleting Frank Rich's opinion but restoring Matthew Continetti's?   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)