Talk:Jim Inhofe

"Global warming skeptic"

In the opening section of this article, Inhofe is referred to as a "global warming skeptic." Isn't the proper term "Climate change denier." We would not call someone who suggests that cigarettes don't cause cancer a "tobacco cancer-link skeptic." Skepticism suggests that there is some reasonable point of view he is representing. But it's been pretty well documented that the scientific community universally agrees that global warming is both real and in part man made. So why do we grant Inhofe the overly generous label of "skeptic?"Mackabean (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with this. In most cases, such as for scientists who have criticised the mainstream view of global warming, 'skeptic' is the appropriate term to use. But I just can't see the justification for it on Inhofe's article: he's not skeptical about the existence of global warming, he denies it completely. I'm going to change the lead accordingly. Robofish (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed that so many politically left "editors" are here to bias the article against Inhofe; especially since their only sources seem to be far left bloggers who are just as extreme as they are. To be accurate, Inhofe is neither a global warming skeptic nor a climate change denier. Those are propaganda terms that have no place in this Wikipedia article.

New Commenter (Folsom530) - I disagree the wording is "climate change denier". That's as politically biased as saying a pro-choice person is "anti-life". It is outrageous to furthermore suggest that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming, as this article states. There is not a "scientific consensus" at all. A consensus by definition means coming to agreement AS A WHOLE. Well, duh...the WHOLE scientific community has not come to a consensus! This wording is biased against the senator and needs to be revised to something like "popular scientific opinion", or some other wording that does not indicate a consensus...which again, means that EVERYONE has come to an agreement. Yeah, everyone on the left....too funny. Nice try left wing-nuts! Folsom530 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted a hyperlink in this disputed paragraph to the main article on climate change skepticism/denial, as well as a reference to a survey on the prevalence of attitudes about climate change in the scientific community. Staffers will always try to make their boss' wikipedia page seem as positive as possible, so for anyone upset about the purported liberal bias in this section of the article, never fear: you can be sure that Inhofe's staff will make sure it doesn't tilt too far to the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleddjt (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Global warming views

• a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities

This is saying (1) that there is a consensus view and (2) that Inhofe disagrees with that view. I think rather that there is a mainstream view - particularly as reported in English-language media - but Inhofe denies that this view is a consensus. He say, "The science is mixed."

It would be better if Wikipedia would not endorse the view that scientists are mostly in agreement about global warming. How could we possibly know that? Instead, we should list the sources that assert that most scientists agree. Understand? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have articles explaining the scientific opinion on climate change, such as Scientific opinion on climate change. We don't need to re-hash all that in this article: it's sufficient to summarise it here, as the sentence you quoted does. As for 'how could we possibly know that' - because lots and lots of reliable sources say so, not least the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which provides a reasonably reliable account of the international consensus view in this area. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the criticism posted here. It doesn't matter how many times the political left reposts their talking points on "climate change." Repetition is not proof, nor does it increase the credibility of the claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.22.122 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Inhofe's own staff have said the majority of scientists reject his views: "Asked in writing whether Inhofe agrees that he's at odds with the scientific mainstream, his committee staff retorted, "How do you define 'mainstream'? Scientists who accept the so-called 'consensus' about global warming? Galileo was not mainstream.""^[1]--The lorax (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Marriage

The comments regarding marriage is very biased toward the left. Why does it say 'he is hostile to gay rights'. It should say 'he is a supporter of traditional marriage.' Or does Wikepedia now even not even pretend to be 'unbiased'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.36.45.123 (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue has not yet been addressed. Rodchen (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion that "hostile to gay rights" and "supporter of traditional marriage" are not the same things and should not be considered interchangeable. Joetho (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Joe

Neutral point of view

This article needs to be written to provide a neutral point of view of the Senator. This article is written from a liberal and critical ppoint of view, very different than articles about liberal senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.24.23 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is 'locked', but should be edited from a non-biased point of view. For example, highlighting his stance on marriage, and saying his is 'hostile' to Gay issues is very biased. Rodchen (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Aviation incident

In October, Inhofe deliberately landed on a closed runway full of construction workers. The FAA investigated and sanctioned Inhofe; he was required to complete remedial training, a very unusually lenient consequence.

Should this be added to the "Aviation" section of Senator Inhofe's page?

Ltyore (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone added it. I do feel this info deserves to be in the article, however, I question it's current place in the "Political views" section as there is nothing political about the incident. Just my two cents.»NMajdan·talk 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it out of "Political views", and renamed the section -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Greenpeace

There appears to be an undue focus on the views of GP, and specifically the agenda against the Koch's. The recent section I removed provides undue weight to the donations from Koch's Industries. The way it read was to imply that their donation was somehow special and notable within the entirely of Inhofe's donations. The fact is that their donation amounts are not significant with regards to his entire donation information. Open Secrets only lists the top 50 donors, of which Koch is not one of them. If we are going to list the Koch Industries donation then we are required to list all other donations down to that amount in order to present a neutral point of view. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Koch Industries

I have reverted today's two-minute hate on Koch Industries because it fundamentally misrepresents the data from the Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets). There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page which states: "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates." Therefore, the claim that Koch Industries is Inhofe's top contributor is incorrect. The PAC and individual donations from Koch Industries employees (aggregated) are Inhofe's largest contributor, but neither the company nor any of its individual employees are at the top. The PAC is the tenth largest PAC contributor, and while the individuals are the largest (as an aggregate), that does not equate to the company being the donor, as implied by the link in the reverted edit. Horologium (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I used your exact wording above. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording is now acceptable to me and I won't revert it, although I still fail to understand why it's significant. Every candidate for congress has a top contributor, but few of their articles on Wikipedia specify who or what it is. And FWIW, the aspersions you cast upon me in your edit summary on the article page are noted and not appreciated. I feel the same way, but I didn't feel the need to use the edit summary (which cannot be refactored or struck) for a passive-aggressive slap at an editor with whom I have a content dispute. Horologium (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Grouping a PAC and all of a group's members into an "aggregate" claim is silly -- in such a case the largest "aggregate" group is "registered Republicans." Making an artificial group, no matter by whom, is SYNTH at best. Collect (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here, Collect. It's not synthesis because CRP has made the connection for us. It's arbitrary, and is just being misused to turn the Koch brothers into the real-life analogue of Emmanuel Goldstein, but it's not synthesis. I think it is more a case of WP:UNDUE, and am considering submitting a request to the BLP or NPOV noticeboards. Much as I dislike this individual (and I do), BLP concerns are paramount, and the same holds for the Kochs. Horologium (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought the link was to a set of "search results" and not to an article from CRP? Collect (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I just added a secondary source from 2008 which says, "A strong ally of the oil and gas industries, he has received more than $1 million in campaign contributions from that sector during his time in office -- more than twice as much as any other source, according to the watchdog organization Center for Responsive Politics. His single largest donor during the current campaign cycle has been an oil-related firm, Koch Industries."   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As worded, it specifically states the company made the donations then? Collect (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

When reporters say that "XYZ Industries" donated to a politician, they almost always mean the company's PAC. (At least in the days before "Citizens United"). However you can interpret this text as well as I can.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

IOW if a reporter makes an allegation which on its face is a felony, we should simply repeat it? Interesting sort of belief, that. The cite, btw, is not an "article" but a "search result" The Koch Industries PAC is ranked number 8 on the PAC list for Imhofe. Clearly we should then also indicate all the PACs with higher donations if we are to be intellectually honest. Or do you really think not a single NRA member made a donation? Really? It looks like the Koch group was singled out, but the members of the other organizations do not exist? Neat! Collect (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What source do you have for Koch Industries being ranked 8th in contributions to Inhofe?   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the PAC was number 10 according to CPR. Using the source cited. Meanwhile, I suggest that some memebrs of the AMA likely gave some money etc. Assuming that the "0" in any column means "no money" is not asserted by the CPR at all, and thus should not be asserted by Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The citation is to an article that says "His single largest donor during the current campaign cycle has been an oil-related firm, Koch Industries.", and to the Open Secrets site[2] which says the same thing. I'm going to restore the sourced language. If someone finds a secondary source which asserts some other figures then we can add that too.   Will Beback  talk  16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The secondary source is incorrect, as it references the CPR website, and (just like one of the editors here), assumes that "Koch Industries" means the company. Will, your wording avoids that pitfall, and as I said, I don't have any problem with its factual accuracy. I do thought that it violates WP:UNDUE, however: the amount donated to Inhofe from Koch Industries employees and the company's PAC amounts to less than one half of one percent of the $16,400,000 he has raised throughout his congressional career. In spite of that tiny percentage, we have an entire sentence dedicated specifically to Koch Industries and its employees; the preceding sentence (the rest of the paragraph) is written to provide cover for the Koch sentence. Both should be removed. Horologium (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you're misreading WP:UNDUE. This isn't a fringe view. We shouldn't assume that the subject's most prominent donors are the ones which give the most money. Likewise, if the subject made 100 speeches on fiscal policy which no one reported and one speech on foreign policy which received a lot of attention, we wouldn't be required to give more attention to the fiscal speeches. Our coverage should be proportional to the weight given topics by reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with you about weight. It's not a fringe view, but it is not a particularly important part of Jim Inhofe's life and career. And so far, I've not seen a great deal of coverage in reliable sources about the minuscule proportion of contributions which come from Koch Industries, et al (the blogosphere, which is kicking up a storm of biblical proportions, doesn't count). As Koch Industries (and its employees and its PAC) are the 87th biggest donor to federal campaigns ($9 Million over the past 21 years, never more than $1.9M in any cycle), they don't have anywhere near the expenditures of left-leaning groups such as ActBlue or right-leaning groups such as Altria. Few, if any, BLPs of congressional representatives or senators discuss their donors in such excruciating detail, and I don't see why this senator should be treated any differently. Horologium (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Listing a career politician's biggest donor doesn't seem like excess detail. If there are sources which say that these contributions to Inhofe are miniscule then let's add those too.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that we need to resort to such a cumbersome wording (listing the PAC, and then the employees' contributions, and noting that they have to be combined to make them the largest) emphasizes that someone is working overtime to work this into the article. If we were talking about a single person or PAC contributing the sum, that would be one thing, but this is a conglomeration of an unknown number of individual donors. Another exception could be considered if the total contributed by any group was unusually large in comparison to other groups; that is not the case here, as the PAC is the tenth largest PAC donor, and the individual donations exceed the next highest group by less than $3000. Horologium (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We just could go with the secondary source which simply says that Koch Industries is the largest contributor to Inhofe's campaigns. We're making this more complex than it needs to be.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that the secondary source is wrong,(and how) and trying to rely on that alone will result in some type of dispute resolution. Horologium (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't quite understand how it's wrong. When people make donations over $200 they are required to list their employer. So it's relatively simple to add up the contributions made directly by Koch Industries employees and by the Koch Industries PAC. That's what the CRP does on this page.[3] Are we saying that that page is incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but employees of Koch Industries ≠ Koch Industries. Employees are free to contribute to whomever they wish. Look at individual contributions from companies such as Goldman Sachs or Microsoft to see how individual employees often donate substantial sums to differing parties' usually each individual overwhelmingly supports one party or the other. The end result, however, is often somewhat mixed. Certain companies or industries, however, are targeted by a party, which tends to make their contributions skew one way or the other. Lawyers and labor unions generally support the Dems, while energy and tobacco companies are more likely to support the Republicans, but I'm sure that there are examples of each where employees support the "other side". Horologium (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's all correct. But I don't see how that invalidates the assertion made by this source. At the end of the day, the owners and employees of Koch Industries gave more to Inhofe than any other identifiable group, according to the CRP, and that fact was notable enough to appear in a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that; it lists ALL of the "identifiable groups"; it doesn't single out Koch Industries (PAC and employees) for special treatment, and as I have repeatedly stated, that secondary source misrepresents the data from CRP (and I have explained how it does so), and is therefore not an acceptable source. Horologium (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Media references to the contributions of a company have traditionally been a shorthand for contributions by the company's employees and/or owners and related PACs. I don't think that's inaccurate, just a standard practice. I'm sure I could find a dozen similar references in unimpeachably reliable sources regarding other candidates and companies. That seems like nit-picking.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Most of the PACs listed show no individual contributions listed, including the Aircraft Owners & Pilots, UPS, National Assn. of Realtors, the NRA, AMA, and National Auto Dealers Assn.

Which source says this? It seems like a bit of a reach.   Will Beback  talk  18:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason that those groups lack individual donations is because they don't employ many people; they are industry or interest groups, not employers. The PACs representing groups with individual donations are all those of companies which employ substantial numbers of people. CRP's donor lookup relies on employer data provided by the donors, not to which interest groups they belong. Horologium (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Might you note that the AMA shows absolutely ZERO member contributions to Imhofe? Do you really think not a single doctor in the entire US made a donation? Not a single Realtor made a contribution? Not a single pilot made a contribution? Most PACs represent common interest groups in point of fact - and are not contributions by an employer. BTW, last I looked, UPS has a substantial number of employees (well over four hundred thousand) - and not a single one contributed?! The material about employers is clearly not complete, and so saying or implying that it is is clearly contrary to common sense, and CONTRARY to what the site says. And, contrary to the inane "citation needed" bit - the amounts of ZERO are clearly shown on the cited page - it is silly to say that where a page says "0" that a citation is needed separately to show the "0". Collect (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that you think Open Secrets/CRP is an unreliable source for campaign finance info?   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but Collect is a bit confused here. Contributions to PACs will show up as PAC contributions to the candidate. Individual donations are sorted by EMPLOYER, not interest group. 100,000 doctors individually donating to Coburn would not show up on the list, because individual donations are from individuals, and the donor lookup uses employer data. It doesn't look at occupation, such as "doctor", "pilot", or "realtor". As to UPS and its missing employee donations, total donations from a single individual to a single candidate of less than $200 don't need to be reported individually, and I'm willing to bet that UPS doesn't have people who are donating large sums to any single candidate. For example, the $20 contribution I made to a candidate in 2000 does not show up on any contribution list, because it didn't meet the reporting threshold; the candidate's campaign simply had to note a $20 donation was made. I'm not sure if I'm making this any clearer. Horologium (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So far as I know, all of that is correct. However none of that invalidates the source. It's just how campaign contributions are reported. If we have a source which says that doctors or pilots gave more money than Koch Industries then we can add that too.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)In which case not a single one of UPS' 400K+ employees made a contribution to Imhofe. Nope - the cite specifically states that all it deals with is what was reported to the FEC. It makes no claims otherwise at all. And I would suggest we should also link to the list of PACS contributing to his opponent. I am willing to bet some interesting overlaps exist. And all I state is that the contributions total for Koch is not directly comparable to the PACS for which zero other individual contributions are sorted in the FEC records. Seems like that would be quite non-contentious, and fully sourced to boot. BTW, Will, rraising "straw issues" is not called for here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Note [4] individual contributions from 13 other groups topped the Koch employee contributions. Single largest group is "retired." "Health professionals" is pretty high on the list as well. Unless the article for some reason must mention Koch and no one else, I suggest this page also be added. Reliable source relevant to campaign contributions. I trust, of course, that the reason for the current mention has nothing to do with pushing the "Koch" connection into every possible article on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a different list. In that list the Oil & Gas industry, of which Koch is a part, is still on top.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Of which Koch is a part" is a very weak argument indeed. They were less than half that industry's total, in fact, and singling them out is not really relevant for the Inhofe BLP, and more a sign that an editor or editors actively inserting Koch in various articles thought it was a good idea to insert them here as well. Searching for various lists and choosing a contributor which is not even half the amount, and then synthesizing it into "Oil and Gas gave money, and Koch was a big contributor within that group is sufficient to say Koch is somehow a really really big contributor" is COATRACK at best, likely SYNTH and OR combined, and invalid in a third party BLP. Neat! Collect (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing what a source says is not SYNTH. Adding material directly relevant to the subject's political campaigning, as found in secondary sources, is not COATRACK. Nobody has suggested the language ou post, so that seems like a strawman. The text in the article is a neutral summary that does not violate any Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You are taking a search result and then imputing material from a table and not stated as a text claim. Would you allow me to cite a table and make statements based on the data in the table? Not likely. Heck, you found me citing Time for a journalist writing an anti-smoking article in Time to be "demeaning" of all things! We are grossly abusing CRP for the claims you seek to add here, and it is not an RS for the claim as you assert the claim. Cheers. At least I am consisten as to what is proper and improper in a BLP. Collect (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect, please be truthful. I never said that reporting a smoking was demeaning.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To be precise you wrote: Picking out one for mention might be a cherry-picking issue unless there are independent sources to show that one is more noteworthy than the rest referring to my noting her anti-smoking article in Time. RD232 wrote: This is just part of a pretty self-evident campaign by Collect to denigrate a respected journalist.

I still fail to see how noting an anti-smoking article denigrates anyone at all.

You stated that you knew of no BLPs noting that a famous person (in this case a journalist) had been a debutante (I had not used that word, by the way). I pointed out that many famous people (well over a hundred on Wikipedia) had that fact noted, including famous authors and journalists. Seems that the NYT is no good as a reliable source, but tables from seach functions at CRP are reliable sources LOL! Collect (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So do you admit that I never said it was "demeaning" and that you made that up? I really don't see what any of of this has to do with this topic. Nobody is claiming Inhofe was a debutante, but if you have sources for it go ahead and add it. ;)   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to the Wikipedia editor community for my recent conduct on this article. Reviewing the chain of events, my original mention of the Koch brothers was not supported by the citation I used, and then the various reversions and revisions (with accompanying snarky edit descriptions) were no better. It's no excuse, but I think I was suffering from some displaced anger caused by chronic pain. Like I said, no excuse, just a feeble effort at explanation. I've recused myself from this article, and I don't edit any other climate change or Koch-related articles, so hopefully I will be of no more trouble on this matter. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The role of money in these scientific disputes

I hear a lot about how this and that scientist is really "in the pay of the White Witch" aka fossil fuels (with apologies to C.S. Lewis). And we all know that money talks, while @%@^*()^ walks.

But has anyone written a book about how the desire for money or position can affects research in general? I mean something more than anecdotal evidence that Dr. Stud Ear is biased because he needed a grant or an academic honor or a big fat consulting fee from *gasp* private industry? I'm talking about a scientific study on how factors other than The Search For Truth can motivate and/or sidetrack academics: something more rigorous than "follow the money"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, never mind, I found it: Funding bias. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Koch Industries.

Wikilink Koch Industries, please. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Due to the Koch family's funding, add Political activities of the Koch family also, please. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account? Arzel (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't get distracted, Arzel. Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal. 99.119.131.30 (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, some are just annoying IP jumpers. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No to what, Arzel? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe, raised $16.2 million, 13% from energy and natural resources (extractive industry-based), who has received more money from Koch Industries (see Political activities of the Koch family) than any other company. The oil firm has given nearly $25 million to climate change denial groups. This per the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) as list on page 44 and 49 of Mother Jones September/October 2010 "Who Owns Congress" by Dave Gilson? Also see Talk:Climate change policy of the United States ... from Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. 99.181.145.108 (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire paragraph mentioning Koch Industries is undue weight, as the information from OpenSecrets.org reports the $90,950 they attribute to Koch is less than 0.6% of the total contributions in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A politician's biggest contributor is not 'undue' weight. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But the calculations done by OpenSecrets.org are unique to them. If, as a rational person would do, you do not combine employee contributions, or combine them with (company) PAC contributions, the largest contributor is AOPA PAC. Furthermore, as OpenSecrets notes, individual contributors under $200, or those who do not report their employer, cannot be analyzed by OpenSecrets. At the least, the appropriate percentage should be added, but I think that combination is improper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now added the percentage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, if one has more than one employer, and makes a contribution in excess of $200, are there guidelines for the contributor to decide which employer to list? And are contributors asked to follow those guidelines?

If not, then the official reports are suspect, even though OpenSecrets may be a reliable secondary source reporting the primary source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

When a political donation is made, it's my understanding that the blank for employer is filled in by the donor.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but, if a donor has more than one employer, does she have any guidance as to which one to include. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that a question, Art ... (?) ... ? Note: AOPA is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and aircraft create a create deal of greenhouse gases and directly up in the atmosphere. 99.19.47.119 (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Who cares?   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The list should be removed, and the largest contributor (AOPA) should be listed with a percentage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To whom are you replying? I was asking who cares if donors to the subject have more than one employer?   Will Beback  talk  08:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OpenSecrets should, as it's another flaw in their methodology. Also, I can't believe that no employees of UPS contributed to his campaign. Perhaps they don't track UPS employees. (Pun intended.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The FEC collects this information, according to their rules. OpenSecrets and other websites just compile it.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not. There are few, if any, employees of "Koch Industries". Most employees would list the specific subsidiary, so OpenSecrets would have to consolidate those. So, there is actually some creative thought involved in OpenSecrets' calculations. It still doesn't explain why it is reported that no employees of UPS contributed more than the reporting amount (now $200, used to be $100) to Inhofe's campaign. Perhaps they reported "UPS", and OpenSecrets attributed it to some other "UPS"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know how many employees there are, or in what way that effects how they list their employer? Why should there be contributions from UPS employees?   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:COI Art, if you were/are supported by the political activities of the Koch family, such as Koch Industries (Foundations, etc...). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:COI/N if you wish to make an accusation. If you do not do so, then you have likely misused this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)