Jump to content

Talk:Charles Koch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.111.129.157 (talk) at 20:02, 17 May 2015 (→‎Real time net worth: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ACLU and reason.com

Reason.com is not a reliable source. Reason.com admitted three days later that it could not confirm the ACLU donation. Dr.enh (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When it publishes polls, research, data and analysis Reason and its related foundation are very reliable sources. That said, the Kochs are big donors to that foundation, which should be taken into consideration prior to citation. Further, Reason publishes editorials and polemics, which are typically not *neutral* sources. The New York Times publishes polemic and editorial. The New York Times has also run corrections when cited material is incorrect or misleading. Should we ban their content? The link you've cited, if anything, however shows the significant distance between major Reason donors and their editorial section (if they cant get Charles on the phone to confirm a donation that would play against a common demonizing narrative of the Koch-as-fascist, its unlikely he is writing the articles for them). Furthermore, the correction is for a claim from *another* source that Reason republished. Your complaint would make more sense if you were to say "Faces of Philanthropy" and "New York Social Diary" are not credible sources, since they are the source of the claim. Jaydubya93 (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of JBS

There is a multi-page discussion of this subject on talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers. Including it on Charles Koch's page without any discussion seems out of place. I would also like to make the argument for WP:SYNTH:

This [1] article is used as a source, but it merely hints at any Koch involvement in JBS, by saying: Tea Party is similar to JBS; Kochs fund the Tea Party; Kochs are indirectly involved in JBS. These sources scream WP:SYNTH. I am removing them pending a consensus on the Political activities of the Koch brothers page.

The quote from U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Tom Foley describing him as "'a right-winger' way off the charts." is totally out of line. It is a well-known fact (though if someone would like to contest this point, I would be happy to discuss) that the Kochs are the current favorite punching bag of the left. Just because someone said it is so doesn't make it so. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the removal of this content. Charles Koch was a member of the JBS. That is a sourced fact, completely non-dependent on synthesis. The discussion on another article talk page has no bearing on this article, which is about a different topic altogether. The Tom Foley reference is notable, but its inclusion is negotiable, as should be the unattributed statement: "Charles Koch's views are described as "classical liberal" ".
As to the complaint about Kochs being a punching bag for the left—I can't help you there, as it has nothing to do with Wikipedia inclusion policy. Verifiable content, relevant to the subject can be included in articles. 'Twas always thus, and always thus shall be.
In a nutshell, Charles' membership in the JBS should be included, as it relates directly to his ideological influences, and is more than adequately sourced. - MrX 16:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alas -- there is no reason to believe that his brief membership has had any influence whatsoever on his ideology, nor that it should be mentioned in every possible article with "Koch" in it. Collect (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Classical liberal" is a direct quote from a reliable source - why would you object to it? Collect (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that insight. I was not aware of a campaign to insert this relevant material in every article with "Koch" in it.
Who, specifically, labeled Charles as "classic liberal"? Bonus question: why is that person's view more relevant than House Speaker Tom Foley's? Cheers. - MrX 17:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the "classic liberal" reference was reinserted while I was writing my last response. While I don't necessarily object to that label, nothing has been put forth to attribute it. In other words, "Boulton states... Koch has been described as a "classical liberal" ". Well, who described him that way? Is it more relevant than Foley's description? I don't really care, but I do think that readers deserve to know. - MrX 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused. You re-added the content we are discussing with the edit summary "copy edit this section per JBS discussion on talk page". Is this a discussion in the archives or is it the conversation you just had with yourself above? There is no rush. Why do you insist on including this information while it is being discussed?
While in most circumstances you are correct that a talk page of a different article has no bearing on the article currently being discussed, it is not the case for this article. The page in which JBS is being discussed is "Political activities of the Koch brothers" and, on this page, we are discussing the political activities of one of the Koch brothers. I hope you have had a chance to look over the lengthy discussion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I revised the content in question prematurely. I thought that the version that I edited would address most of the concerns. It now seems as if the largest of these concerns is acknowledging any connection between the JBS and the Kochs. I'm out of my depth in this topic, and not especially interested anyway, so feel free to do what you want. - MrX 18:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter who labeled Charles as "classical liberal" (not "classic" btw), that is what the source says. It is non-controversial that he advocates libertarian or neoclassical economic views, which are often called classical liberalism. (It is clear from the quote that this is how the term is meant.) So too to varying degrees do all right-wing groups in the US. It is not exclusive of any other description of his belief system. My only observation would be that it is unneccessary to include this information as a quotation. TFD (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philanthropy?s=t

phi·lan·thro·py [fi-lan-thruh-pee] Show IPA noun, plural phi·lan·thro·pies.

1. altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes.

2. the activity of donating to such persons or purposes in this way: to devote one's later years to philanthropy.

3. a particular act, form, or instance of this activity: The art museum was their favorite philanthropy.

4. an organization devoted to helping needy persons or to other socially useful purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.235.249 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, using definition 1 or (probably) 4, even his clearly political activities qualify as "philanthropic", as "... other socially useful purposes." Although you may not agree that supporting "the free-market economy" is a "socially useful purpose", you cannot deny that some think it is. You need to find a better definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't altruism contrary to the libertarian ideal of selfishness? TFD (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Libertarianism" != "Objectivism" - Libertarianism allows one to be as altruistic as one wants to be - just that government is not in charge of defining your altruism. Collect (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, the very first words in the definition you quoted are "altruistic concern." None of those activities are born of "altruistic concern." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.136.16 (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been asserted that some of the groups' proposals are against his interest. In fact, there is mention of that in the "Political activities..." article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up again on the page. Quibble with the definition of "philanthropy" if you will, but the fact is, he gives away money. You can call him a "donor," etc., but it looks strange to have the citation needed tag right in the lead when his record of giving away money is well-cited in the article.Safehaven86 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to create an FAQ? (And why is only Charles's, and note David's, philanthropy attacked?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to create an FAQ? It depends what the definition of is is :) Safehaven86 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Koch → Charles Koch – WP:Common name. I've got nine Charles Koch stories in my inbox and none mention his middle name.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Objectivity

This bio reads like it was written by Mr. Koch himself or his staff. It is replete with glowing portrayals of his past activities and personal philosophy -- almost all of which are politically charged and of no public interest -- and simultaneously lacking a single shred of criticism, such as his prominent effort against climate change legislation. I implore the admins to take a serious look at this article (as well as the one on his brother David Koch) and make the sorely needed changes so as to restore Wikipedia's reputation of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.139.200 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears all the "negative" material has been quite properly moved to Political activities of the Koch brothers, which was a subject matter fork. Perhaps that article could be summarized here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation about climate change and misanthropy

Plenty of documentation about the subject:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/13/koch-brothers-make-climate-activists-new-target.html http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/reid-koch-climate-change_n_5282024.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.145.246 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Political contributions and philanthropy

It seems to me that Koch's role as a political donor belongs in the opening sentence. After his role as an entrepreneur, it's what RS primarily describe him as. Certainly, he is far more notable as a political donor than as a philanthropist. Also: We have thin sourcing for "philanthropist." I certainly don't dispute that he is one, or that this is relevant to the article. But we need more specifics. People don't typically think of donations to ideologically-oriented think tanks as "philanthropy." Steeletrap (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Influence Explorer (in the External links) I see he gave $500,000 in political donations. And followthemoney mentions $2.6 million for political causes. But compare with the philanthropyroundtable.org article – $100 million to the NY State Theater, $100 million to MIT for cancer research, etc.. The political donations are drops in the bucket. – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Srich, your argument is fallacious. In determining how much to emphasize Koch's respective roles as a political donor and a philanthropist, we care only about the extent to which RS cover these things. It is likely that RS will cover Koch's donation of $100 million to MIT, and I encourage you to add that information to the article. But as measured by RS, Koch is more notable as a donor to right-wing politics than as a philanthropist.
However, since you raise the issue of dollars, realize that you get that wrong too. His political network gave $400 million to GOP Candidates in the last cycle. Federal campaign finance law prevents him from giving more directly.
This is a sensitive BLP that attracts a lot of demagogues on both sides. It's important to portray his political contributions in an even-handed way. But whitewashing them altogether is a bad idea. Steeletrap (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Charles Koch. The political network article covers him and his brothers, and the $400 million can be added to that article. As you said, we need more specifics. So please don't call my argument fallacious when I provide specifics. – S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, opensecrets.org has a searchable database. You can find by state, name, donee, etc. In my brief search for Charles Koch of Kansas, I found several donations to Republicans, Republican Party, and to Koch Industries. But not a whole lot of money – 50 records for 2014, 2012, 2010, totaling $251,600. "Just the facts, ma'am", just the facts, are what we want for WP. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real time net worth

Is it possible to automatically change the net worth to whatever it says here http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:realtime or can it only be done manually --88.111.129.157 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Koch&oldid=662815547"