Talk:Charles Koch/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ultimatuum

The false accusations of the repeatedly uncivil THF have caused this article to be protected for a few days. While it's protected, THF and all who agree with him are welcome to list their NPOV/UNDUE complaints here. If there are still no concrete, actionable complaints when the article is unlocked, any credibility that THF might still have left with regard to this issue will be understood to have dissipated. This is it, THF: I'm calling your bluff. Dylan Flaherty 04:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above is false: the accusations didn't cause protection, the edit warring did.

• ResolvedNo current dispute, per quote "To repeat: the problem with the article is that it violates WP:UNDUE because 90% of the article is about a 2010 complaint about Koch's political activity and the article entirely ignores the accomplishments of the man's life in building a multi-billion dollar company."
• ResolvedComplaint that source was removed.
• Inconclusive The original complaint wasn't specific; other complaints didn't provide potential fixes or suggestions; without suggestions re text, it's hard to form an opinion
• Seemingly resolved Or at least no concrete action was suggested.

Generally: either resolved or else the complaint didn't include or generate any concrete suggestions for editing the article, and thus cannot be evaluated. Impossible to tell the current state of the debate without a summary. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1) It has more than one cause. If not for the AN/I report by THF, there would be no Protection. Also, if not for the edit history of the article, which features THF editing against consensus over an extended period, the AN/I report would not have resulted in Protection. I'm not interested in debating about which of these two insufficient but necessary conditions is more important.

2) Please take a look at THF's newest list, which looks a lot like his old list. Dylan Flaherty 05:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there seems to be some legit content there. If he now develops text to embody what he thinks should be done to the article, it seems to me it would be a very significant improvement. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fox News

Fox News says Kochs have financial ties to Tea Party groups: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/30/arrested-california-conservative-meeting/ Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not what that article says (aside from the fact that it is AP, not Fox News). That they quoted a protestor's inaccurate sign is hardly an endorsement of it. THF (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Article was rewritten in the short interval between when I posted here and when you read it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Now the LA Times says "They have funded groups pushing a limited-government, libertarian agenda, helped organize "tea party" groups and contributed $1 million to a failed ballot initiative to suspend California's law to curb greenhouse gases." Abductive (reasoning) 07:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

His Role as Half of the "Koch Brothers"

A good deal of the controversy and disputes on this page seem to be centered around Charles role as ½ of the “Koch Brothers” political duo. There are many sources that discuss the political advocacy and financial largess that has been donated by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch known colloquially as the "Koch Brothers" (although yes they have 2 other brothers Bill & Frederick who are not involved in large scale political advocacy). As for sources, below are just a few that discuss the "Koch Brothers" as a notable and influential political entity ...
- The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win audio story by NPR
- The Billionaire Koch brothers war against Obama cover story by The New Yorker
- How Important Are The Koch Brothers? by The New Republic
- Koch Brothers Have Given More Than $100 Million to Right-Wing Causes video by Democracy Now!
- The Koch brothers invade California by Salon magazine
- Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law by The LA Times
- The Koch Brothers and the Tea Parties by The Washington Independent
- Schwarzenegger vs. Big Oil and The Billionaire Koch Brothers by Forbes
- The billionaire Koch brothers: Tea Party puppetmasters? by The Week
- Koch brothers to host rightwing politicians and business leaders at California resort by The Guardian
- Koch Industries (Brothers) and Republicans plan ahead by The New York Times
A potential solution could be to place Charles and his brother David’s political advocacy into a separate article such as Political activities of the Koch family (or as a separate article on the political work of the two "Koch Brothers") – however, a few of the same users who object to Charles' advocacy being mentioned here, also want that article deleted. The sourced information will end up somewhere (along with the referenced rebuttal of the various controversies), thus it will save users a lot of time and frustration once that proverbial resting place is determined.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Restating (for the n-th time) my NPOV concerns in one spot

An incomplete list of concerns that I have stated and restated and relisted for months now, but here's a start:

1. The article overly relies upon the partisan New Yorker hit piece that was refuted by multiple sources, but there's no balance or acknowledgment that the New Yorker article is inaccurate. See sources listed at Talk:Charles_G._Koch#NPOV_tag

1b. There's serious question whether BLP even permits the use of partisan sourcing. At Bill Moyers, there was consensus BLP prohibits even discussing an article by Steven Stephen Hayes, even for purposes of NPOV balance of other points of view about Moyers, because Hayes is partisan. Jane Mayer is partisan. If BLP is to be consistently enforced, then either the Mayer article cannot be used in this BLP, or fair discussion of the Hayes expose' should be added to the Moyers article. See discussion at Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Continued_NPOV_problems_and_POV-pushing.

2. The discussion of the Obama administration attacks on Koch are unbalanced. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#A_good_source_for_balancing_the_political_discussion and Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Obama_administration_attack_on_Koch.

3. A partisan quote from a partisan source falsely attributed to NPR inaccurately describes the Mercatus Center. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Mercatus_Center.

4. WP:UNDUE violations. Compare George Soros, who gives both more money and a larger percentage of his money to political causes, but whose political activity (and criticism of his political activity) is a smaller part of his BLP. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Comparing_this_article_with_George_Soros.

5. WP:RECENTISM violations. A several-decade long career, with hundreds of articles written about him over the decades (see cites at Talk:Charles_G._Koch#NPOV_tag), but nearly everything is from the last five years, and a majority from the last year.

6. There is next to no discussion of Koch's early life and career, despite the availability of biographical material such as Koch's own book.

Alas, this will probably get buried, and I'll be asked to repeat this list yet in under a week. I have three briefs due in $70 million of cases over the next couple of weeks, so Wikipedia is going to take a back burner over the holidays. THF (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing your complaints. Unfortunately, they were neither novel nor compelling. Rather, they were arguments we reviewed and rejected, often more than once.

Briefly:

1) I fully support adding any response from Koch, but all we have left of Mayer is a single line. If anything, that piece is highly notable and deserves more space, not less.

1b) No, no, no. You don't get to point to Bill Moyers or George Soros and pretend they matter. If those articles are broken, go fix them. You arguments here need to rest on their own merit, not imaginary case law.

Start by showing how WP:BLP prevents us from using reliable sources on the basis that they are not individually neutral. Good luck with that.

2) How, specifically, is it unbalanced? There are comments from Koch against Obama and there are comments from Obama reps against Koch. In fact, we had more Obama comments, which were cut without explanation. If anything, it would add balance to restore them.

3) The article identifies the Mercatus Center (formerly the Center for Market Processes) as being in favor of deregulation. Is this a disputed claim? If so, on what basis?

4) We can only report on what we have reliable sources for. If you believe there should be more about social causes, the right answer is to find more material about social causes and add it. If you cannot, then this means it's not unbalanced; there's just less to say about the topic.

5) This was brought up before, and thrown out because there's simply no truth to it. The article does mention some events in the last few years, as Koch has become more prominent in light of his involvement with the TPM, but it also has plenty of material about events that occurred decades ago. Each and every section spans decades.

6) Actually, there is, but you should feel free to add more.

Dylan Flaherty 05:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, THF, thank you for summarizing! I did see some sources above, I believe, which could be used to indicate and explicate the controversy over the New Yorker article. Partisan sourcing can be used, but of course we indicate controversy if reliably sourced. There is only very broad "consistency" in Wikipedia, we consider things case-by-case. Re the attacks by the Obama administration, I don't know the sourcing well enough, and the little I did read didn't seem like direct attacks. Unless we have direct attacks or accusations that there were attacks, we can't report it. No, what you write here won't get buried. I think it has merit, and I would urge you to sandbox the page (or ask me to do it if you prefer) so that a new expanded and balanced version can be developed. It should be on a page where all the editors can participate. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is discourteous: "Thank you for summarizing your complaints. Unfortunately, they were neither novel nor compelling. Rather, they were arguments we reviewed and rejected, often more than once." We have all been asking THF to rewrite his concerns here. Finally, he has. Saying "Unfortunately, they were neither novel nor compelling" is discourteous, especially since we have been asking him to rephrase things here.

Dylan, will you please drop your attitude and stick to the issues? People could have a much better conversation if there was less snark to wade through.

We all wanted him to restate his concerns to discuss them. Right out of the box, you go for the kill with "Rather, they were arguments we reviewed and rejected, often more than once". Then why did we ask him to restate things here if we knew ahead of time they were reviewed and rejected?

Dylan, discuss the issues, drop the snark, and drop the efforts to get people to ignore THF's comments he took the time to restate. Show some respect for a change. You are not the boss of this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone care about arguments that have already been accepted or rejected? After all, there's nothing more to do with them! What I've kept asking for are any currently-active arguments, any complaints that have not been disposed of in one direction or the other.

If THF isn't happy that some of his demands were not met, there are dispute resolution mechanisms available. If he genuinely believes that a WP:BLP violation has occurred, there's even a place to have those examined. Instead, he's stonewalled until he was forced by admin intervention (the article Protection) to say something, and what he said was, by and large, no more than what he's said before, and which is no more or less convincing now than before.

We called his bluff and it turns out that he had nothing. Dylan Flaherty 13:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with THF on 4 and 5. Don't know about the others. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Becritical's sandbox idea. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, that incivility was uncalled for. They are both uncivil quite a lot and it would go much smoother if they weren't. I hope THF will take the time to expand the article (just repeating that; he wants the article fixed, and should write a section we could then put in the article; then write another section). BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, the issue isn't whether THF had ever made complaints, but whether there were any that hadn't either been accepted or dismissed. My comment related to the fact that all of these fit into one of the two categories. Dylan Flaherty 06:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No. We all wanted him to restate his concerns. We never required him to exclude what had'nt been accepted or dismissed. Besides, we are now discussing some of it again, I suppose. You do that plenty, sometimes even going to noticeboards if you don't get what you want. It's THF's turn now to have his say. Please stick to the issues and drop your continuing attempts to stifle debate. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. Dylan Flaherty 13:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that in no way has Mayer's piece been refuted. Rather, a primary document was released by Koch lawyers calling into question the motives of the people who she interviewed but never actually denying any statements of fact. Abductive (reasoning) 08:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hard to refute opinions such as the Koch's being criminals. Her piece is long on opinion and rather short on fact. Collect (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article does not accuse them of being criminals, so you seem to be arguing against the irrelevant. Dylan Flaherty 13:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

restatement section break 1

Please note that Dylan is falsely claiming that arguments have been rejected when they have not, is misrepresenting my restated complaints, and has been topic-banned from Sarah Palin for similarly abusive false claims of consensus. As I predicted, he is overwhelming the talk page with abusive meta-discussion instead of addressing the NPOV problems of the article. THF (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that several of THF's criticisms have merit. I think the Jane Mayer's article is is highly partisan, loaded with opinions and anonymous sources and its use here is dubious at best. I think describing Mercatus merely as promoting deregulation is vague and deceptively narrow. Mercatus puts forward lots of ideas and positions, only some of which could be said to be promoting deregulation. Its a bit like describing greenpeace as an organization that opposes drilling, they do in some cases, but not across the board and, in any event, they do a lot more than that. Same is true of Mercatus, we should describe them using similar language as in the lede for that article, 'a market oriented think tank' or some such thing.

I think all the portions that deal with the Obama administration and 'hard line' libertarian politics should be carefully reconsidered, i am almost always opposed to the use of third party opinions in BLPs and this is no exception. I understand that i might be in the minority in this view, but we should still go over the Obama related sections again.

As for other biographies, I think it is wrong to point to another (broken) article and say "that article sucks, so its ok to make this one suck too", however, it is appropriate to point to another consensus and say "if that is the consensus view for another biography, then we should consider that consensus in this similar biography" Similarly, one can point to an acknolwedged good artcile (like a featured article for instance) and say "this is something of a standard". In both cases it is being argued that other community views in wikipedia have some bearing on the article at hand. Bonewah (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Dylan is indef blocked for incivility as of now, but does have a chance to come back. Here's my opinion on that. I would agree that other discussions and consensus on Wiki have relevance, but as Bonewah says only where they are stable and relate to good articles and then only as non-binding precedence. As a general thing, I don't have any POV on this article, and was only here to try to get things going and out of the rut. It does seem obvious though that the Jane Myers article is partisan/slanted and we need to present both sides. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the tags as we are now discussing this in this section here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well we were.... BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny! I think the slowness may be due to both the end of year holidays and recent indef of someone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This A.M. I read our BLP and the Mayer [1] article for the first time. I think the Jane Mayer piece has lots of content that is notable and useful for the BLP even though it could be seen as being very biased (Bias is usually in the eye of the beholder). I also noticed when reading the BLP that it came across to me as being written in an exceptionally NPOV, fashion both in tone and content. Having said that, I think way too much is made of NPOV tags. Again, its often in the eyes of the beholders, and when I see a NPOV tag, I do not see it as being anything negative at all but rather simply an indication that some lively and constructive discussion is or should be underway. To me its no different from seeing a house for sale that has a mortgage or other type of lien registered against it. So what? The house is still the same house and most nice houses do have a mortgage on them. The NPOV tag is just a claim made by 1 or more Editors that in his/her/their opinion the BLP is not as NPOV as it should be at that moment. "At that moment" brings me to Dylan's point tha much of THF's points have already been "brought up before and thrown out". Again I say "so what?" This is a dynamic almost organic platform where a "case law" approach would be oxymoronic and likely fatal. So, my opinion is the BLP right now is just great and quite NPOV, and to remove the content that THF suggests(I think) removing would,in my view, make it less NPOV. Yet I agree with THF that "There is next to no discussion of Koch's early life and career, despite the availability of biographical material such as Koch's own book." and adding more of that would make the BLP more comprehensive. Also, until,as the tag says, "dispute is resolved", I have no problem at all with the tag remaining for as long as any established Editor like THF feels it is needed. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the current encyclopedic consensus about BLP interferes with the stated goals of the NPOV policy. That said, it would violate the encyclopedia's global NPOV if a different BLP standard were applied to right-wing biographies than for left-wing biographies. The standard for left-wing biographies is currently that articles by partisan sources are not to be cited, and, until that changes, the same standard should apply to right-wing BLPs. THF (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Partisan sources are okay in one case but not the other? Per WP:RS it should depend on the context, but still, if what you said is generally true, then, if it would seem to me, there is a fundamental problem that would need to be addressed, and on a lot of pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, and on a lot of pages. THF (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia content development should be race blind, religion blind, sex blind, and political-bent blind. I,myself, think that "right" and "left" political designations are arbitrary,vague,archaic,not in existance in many countries,mentally lazy Stereotypes and should be ignored if not dropped entirely from vocabulary and certainly from any BLPs(other than within a quote). If what THF says is true, the solution is not to outlaw notable content coming from Reliable "partison" sources on this BLP, but rather to allow notable content coming from Reliable "partison" sources at the BLPS where THF says its being censored out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that is the preferable solution. But I lost that content dispute, and will be accused of violating WP:TEDIOUS if I try to reraise it, so all I can ask for is consistency or for someone else to be more persuasive than I am about where the scope of BLP should be. Right now, Wikipedia consensus prohibits the use of "partisan" sources conveying negative information. If someone wishes to use this reporting in Bill Moyers to the same extent as Ms. Mayer is used in this article, I will support them. Until then, I have to insist that the same BLP rules apply to this article that apply to Bill Moyers (even if they don't seem to apply to Stephen Hayes, where Moyers's attack on Hayes is prominent).THF (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please never mention Bill Moyers on this page again. Doing so would be considered tenditious by any outside observer. Abductive (reasoning) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

restatement section break 2

Still waiting for that article text to NPOV the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete all the Jane Mayer references and citations; add Kim Dennis's defense of Koch against Obama's attacks cited above; delete the NPR reference and use the neutral language from the Mercatus Center page. That's the easy way to do it. I imagine someone will have alternative suggestions. I have three briefs in three cases due in under two weeks, plus preexisting travel plans, so this discussion isn't going to get resolved immediately, but that's okay, because there is no deadline. THF (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Please never mention Bill Moyers on this page again. Doing so would be considered tenditious by any outside observer." I am relatively new on this page, an outside observer, as it were. THF mentioned Bill Moyers and I saw nothing tenditious about it. OTOH, what I quoted above is not the friendliest statement I've ever seen. It instantly makes me think THF might be right about something and perhaps I should take a look. An extremely tenditious editor was just indef blocked and this page has returned to normal. Let's not introduce tension again by telling people what to say and what not to say in response to people making simple observations as part of a conversation that makes such comments relevant. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This guy has been yakking on about how the Bill Moyers article is missing some information for months. It has no place on this talk page, and is used by him as a cudgel to try to get his way. Since nobody cares but him, I have no idea why he thinks it is effective as a cudgel, but it is certainly not conducive to building an encyclopedia. I strongly urge that everybody cease mentioning Bill Moyers immediately. Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

He responded to two editors questions/concerns. He did not raise the issue sua sponte. Lay off the personal comments and stick to the issues. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he was asked what issues were still a problem for him, and on Dec 23, he brought up this Bill Moyers non-issue again. He has continually refused to stop doing so. Therefore, this is an ongoing problem, which can only get better if nobody mentions Bill Moyers again. Abductive (reasoning) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly a non-issue. This article doesn't meet the BLP standard established at that article. So one article or the other needs to be changed because there isn't a consensus on whether to include partisan sourcing in a BLP. Other editors here agree with me that the inconsistency violates Wikipedia policy and that my raising it isn't tendentious (and I've raised it as one of seven different problems with this article), so I fail to see why you get to unilaterally assert consensus. This page slogged into nothing because of a now-blocked editor insisting on having a conversation about the conversation about the conversation about the article instead of discussing the article. You've made three talk-page edits attacking me without any contribution to the underlying discussion. Can we discuss the article? THF (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is unbalanced in the pro-Koch direction. The lead has been thorough buried--the majority of readers are here because of that New Yorker article. What the New Yorker article said about Koch must be mentioned. I can't find any Steven Hayes, but if he is a blogger, it cannot be allowed. Also, the sentence "Charles, along with his brother, David, have been repeatedly singled out for criticism by members of the Obama administration for their political activism." is POV-laden. The POV here is one of phrasing, so I am content to allow it to remain along with the NPOV tag until somebody comes along and fixes it. Americans for Prosperity are introduced without explaining that they are a Koch-founded and funded advocacy org. George Soros is mentioned as funding orgs with different ideologies, so there is no need to worry about somehow balancing the lengths of text in this article with the Soros article. Otherwise I agree with User:Dylan Flaherty's response (diff) although not his tone. Abductive (reasoning) 21:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, you've been opining on Stephen Hayes and criticizing me for mentioning him without ever reading the article that he wrote that was scrubbed from another BLP on the grounds that he's a partisan writer. There's no distinction between Hayes and Mayer, other than that Hayes is more accurate. I'm not sure what mind-reading device you're using to determine that people are at this page because of the Mayer article, as opposed to say, Frank Rich or National Review or Daily Kos or any of the dozens of refutations of the Mayer article that aren't cited in this article five times. Koch didn't found the Americans for Prosperity advocacy organization, so there's no reason for the article to say he did. THF (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the only Steven Hayes I could find is that guy who killed that whole family in Connecticutt. Abductive (reasoning) 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Google must distinguish between Steven and Stephen. My apologies for incorrectly misspelling it once out of the eight times I mentioned his name. THF (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please just put the text of the article as you think it should be here on the talk page so we really have something to discuss. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to repeat myself just 12 hours after I did exactly that? It's enormously frustrating for you to ask the question, for me to answer it, and then for you to act like I never responded. THF (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean the top here that starts "An incomplete list of concerns that I have stated and restated and relisted for months now, but here's a start:"? Or am I missing where you suggested article text. That's great, I'm just suggesting that you write text to be inserted in the article which fixes the problems you specified. But if it was just 12 hrs ago, I must be missing it above, which is a failing of mine. It would help if you put the text in a new section. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete all the Jane Mayer references and citations; add Kim Dennis's defense of Koch against Obama's attacks cited above; delete the NPR reference and use the neutral language from the Mercatus Center page. That's the easy way to do it. I imagine someone will have alternative suggestions. I have three briefs in three cases due in under two weeks, plus preexisting travel plans, so this discussion isn't going to get resolved immediately, but that's okay, because there is no deadline. THF (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'll check back in a few weeks then. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The only reason people have even heard of this guy is the Jane Mayer article. There is no way that is constructive. Abductive (reasoning) 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I heard of him 14 years ago, and have provided hundreds of cites that pre-date Mayer. The reason to delete Mayer is because of the pre-existing Wikipedia consensus that BLP prohibits the use of negative partisan sources. Take it up with the rest of the encyclopedia (I agree with you in principle), but we're not going to have a different rule for Koch than for other biographies. THF (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have non-partisan, independent, reliable secondary sources that call Jane Mayer, The New Yorker or her article partisan? Do you have any non-partisan, independent, reliable secondary sources that call into question any statements of fact in the Jane Mayer article? Abductive (reasoning) 02:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I said it was a plan, I didn't state a judgment on the merits of it. Any actually suggested article text is going to move the discussion along. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism from Obama administration

User:Abductive objects to the sentence "Charles, along with his brother, David, have been repeatedly singled out for criticism by members of the Obama administration for their political activism." Can he explain the nature of his problem, and propose alternative language? THF (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to that sentence very much. However, your plan (above) to remove all secondary sources critical of the subject is completely unacceptable. I note that you said nothing like that when asked to restate your problems with the article. Abductive (reasoning) 02:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't ask to remove all secondary sources critical of the subject. Just the ones that fall within categories that other BLP articles have deemed unacceptable. The criticism by Obama and Obama administration officials is notable, it just needs to be balanced by the refutations. THF (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, we have been over this again and again. The Mayer source is very clearly biased and have numerous factual errors. Let's agree to do a better job and use the Mayer language only when no other source will do. That Mayer piece is riddled with factual errors. User:THF, if you could suggest other sources or other language where the Mayer piece is, that is not biased in favor or against the Kochs, I think we should add it. User: Abductive, if you (and others) would then vet those sources, I think we can possibly get the neutrality tag remove, which is a slight on all the hard work that I and others have put into this story to make it more honest and less opinionated. This seems the best compromise.

Even if one were the most left-wing person ever and hate the Kochs for their mere existence, Wikipedia is ill-served when we don't adhere to principles of objectivity.Heinleinscat (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking, I am unfamiliar with a part of speech known as an "abductive object." Badmintonhist (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a literary term for "damsel in distress." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

THF = sources you find reliable?

User:THF, it is interesting that you deem an array of sources POV (Mayers, NPR etc), while yourself --> inserting this National Review --> article by Kimberly Dennis (fmr executive director of the Philanthropy Roundtable) - a group that has received $ 19,200 from the Koch Family Foundation and who praises Charles Koch's Charitable Foundation --> link. Thus, should we presume that this is indicative of what you view as an acceptable and unbiased news source on the matter? Because such clarity would be helpful as we all move forward in this discussion.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I proposed the Dennis link over a month ago on this talk page, and no one suggested there was anything wrong with it. If you have an alternative suggestion for balancing the false attack on the Kochs made by the Obama administration, I'm happy to hear it.

Please don't misrepresent my position. I didn't say NPR violated NPOV. I said the quote from a partisan source quoted by NPR violated NPOV. Please also stop wikistalking me: you're complaining about my edit in retaliation for my pointing out your POV-pushing spamming of a fringe far-left website in multiple articles. THF (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your "Wikistalking"/"Pov-spamming" allegation is rich, untrue and WP:NPA - but I don't expect you to start following decorum now. For the record I am not "following" you, I edited this article as early as September 13, 2010 - ad it's been on my watch list since that time. Now, seeing that you did not respond to the substance of my question, I will assume that National Review writers whose organizations receive funds from the Koch brothers - is your idea of a neutral news source on the Koch Brother’s political activities. At least now we are all on the same page, and your reasoning exposed for what it is.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not complicated: there's a partisan attack on the Kochs by a member of the Obama administration; NPOV requires that we balance it with the significant (and, as it happens, accurate) point of view that the Obama administration's attack is factually incorrect. If you have an alternative suggestion, I'm happy to collaborate on the article. But your wikistalking is demonstrated by the title of this section. THF (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

THF, you are the one that decided to devote an entirely new section with its own title i.e. "Restating my NPOV concerns in one spot" to your own personal views on the article. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to have a subsection dedicated to your choices of "NPOV sources"; since your primary conclusion is that this article suffers from a lack of objective references. As for the "WP:Accuracy" of your addition, that is not what we are concerned with as editors, but WP:Verify, WP:Reliable etc. Moreover, your failure to acknowledge the potential conflict of interest between the author Kimberly Dennis and her conclusions, is either the result of (a) not being aware of them (i.e. poor research) or (b) deliberately not mentioning them (i.e. pov-driven obfuscation). But even that could be overlooked, if you then weren’t also hypocritically declaring every source to the left of the National Review unreliable and politically tainted, while coincidentally holding up your own conservative personal ideological view as the paragon of truth on the matter.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're complaining about how I titled that talk-page section, then all you're doing is demonstrating that you've had nothing to do with this talk page or article for the last several months, and are here in retaliation for my reporting your spamming of a unreliable fringe source. When you wish to address what I've actually said rather than personally attack strawman misrepresentations of my positions, we can discuss the content of this article. THF (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mayer and conservative bloggers

Sorry about restoring the criticism. The section should probably be tagged as WP:UNDUE, as using Mayer as a source without noting the appropriate criticism, is clearly undue weight. However, the blog entries probably are separate BLP violation against Mayer, so should not be listed. Remind me, per WP:TROUT if I forget again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not noting some blogs criticizing an article does not prevent us from discussing a prominent work of professional journalism. Responses to the Mayer article from all sides of the political spectrum should be noted, but not in this manner. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can live with Abductive's edit keeping Andrew Sullivan in the long run, but the criticism/response is longer than the discussion of the content of the piece itself and notes no praise or non-negative response. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I could live with additional praise (if any) provided the FACT that Mayer's articles are highly polemic, do not meet the tone expected of news articles, and use biased and unreliable (generic, not the Wikipedia term) sources without evidence of further investigation were noted, as well. Sullivan's comment is necessary, but may not go far enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that those allegations could be mentioned if sourced to an RS. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The New Yorker has an exceptional reputation for fact checking. As a general principle, if we re working with a reliable source we don't delve into their sources. If a reporter writes that sources told him that the getaway car was a green Honda, or that there were two explosions, we don't take it upon ourselves to prove the reporter's sources were reliable or unreliable. Instead, we depend on the reporter and his editors to make those determinations.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, if we're going to question the neutrailty of the Mayer article shouldn't we also question the neutrality of the Searle Foundation praise? Iowacornfed (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Searle Foundation praise is clearly inadequately sourced. What's more, it requires more explanation to make it non-misleading, even if it were sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, you seem well acquainted with the libertarian movement and it's organizations. Would it be worth someone's time to create a "Searle Foundation" entry? Iowacornfed (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I was well-connected when I ran for State Assembly in 1984; much less so, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

ACLU

I don't see how Mayer quoting Greenpeace (in, but not necessarily by, The New Yorker) can be any more reliable than Balko (a senior editor of Reason) quoting the New York Social Diary and Faces of Philanthropy. Greenpeace has a reputation for inaccuracy, while the New York Social Diary has only a marginal reputation for accuracy, and I don't know about Faces of Philanthropy (the article in question was posted by the admin). And the paragraph is required for balance. I'm restoring it, although a reasonable alternative would be to remove all items sourced, directly or indirectly, to Greenpeace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And if this article is subject to 1RR, the new editor is almost certainly the same as the anon, so I'm reverting a separate 1RR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The anon and Iowacornfed are in fact one in the same. I apologize for my noobish bumbling in not creating an account before the first edit. I believe the best approach would be to remove any references to donations that cannot be sourced to a primary source such as a press release from the beneficiary or public record. Iowacornfed (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that material should achieve a consensus for addition or deletion, other than material which must be removed per WP:BLP. You should likely apprise yourself of WP:RS as well. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." - From the BLP rules was my basis for the original edit. I stand by the assertion that a casual, unsourced, and non sequitur reference by a society gossip website writer is sufficiently poor as to be questionable to a reasonable individual. I further assert that the Balko citation, being derived from the NYSD website, carries no additional weight, regardless of the normal deference one would give to Reason. Iowacornfed (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The cite is RS per WP:RS, unless, of course, you find the claims that they give money to places to be "contentious." Are you so claiming? Collect (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Balko was derived from "Faces of Philanthropy", not the gossip website. However, if you (Iowacornfed) are going to use that argument, anything attributed to Greenpeace has got to go, as they have a reputation for inaccuracy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an inappropriate argument between articles, but reasonable within an article, per WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The first link in the Balko article is to the NYSD item which, to my mind, sets it's primacy as a source. Given the lack of source in the "Faces of Philanthropy" website I'm wary of using it as well. I would argue that while Greenpeace is certainly a biased source it is not particularly inaccurate. I would be content with a removal of any references to C. Koch's political and philanthropic donations that are not cited to a press release by the beneficiary or a public record. I would hope that, regardless of the decision to keep or delete the passage, we can agree to correct the citation to the NYSD from "New York Social Daily" to "New York Social Diary". Iowacornfed (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. If a primary source is quited in a ssecondary source - then the factual information is presumed to have been vetted by the secondary source. The primary source, however, would be the ACLU financial statements indicating the donation. The NYSD is secondary, even if one does not like it. Collect (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the the ACLU financial statements indicating the donation would be a primary source for this information. When I used the phrase "primacy as a source" I was referring to it being Balko's most important or most trusted source. Given that neither the NYSD or FoP webpages make an effort to cite their sources we have no guarantee as to their veracity. Balko also makes no reference in his story to an attempt to vet either source by, say, requesting a verification from the ACLU. For all we know Balko verified the NYSD story with the FoP (or vice versa) with no indication from either source what their relation to the primary source is. Again, if this is the quality of the information available, I think it best to leave all mention out until somebody shows up with a higher quality source. And I would agree with any desire to hold similar pieces of information to the same standard.Iowacornfed (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the statement that should be in the article, sourced to Reason, is "According to NYSD and FoP, the Kochs donated $20M to the ACLU." Would that resolve the issue? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it better to repeat unsubstantiated hearsay or to remain silent? I think it better to avoid making any factual claim that can't be traced, via however convoluted a series of direct citations, to a reliable primary source. Again, I think this standard should be applied equally to all the assertions in this section, including to the Greenpeace-via-Mayer comments that were raised in the beginning of this section. Iowacornfed (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is David Koch on the Board of Trustees of the Reason Foundation? Doesn't this cause serious concerns about Balko's neutrality? Iowacornfed (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Have you found any remotely reliable source denying that the Koch's gave the money to the ACLU? Note particularly that the ACLU has not made any such claim. Collect (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source that meets the "no original research" test. I did run across a blog entry which related that, when asked, the author of the NYSD piece could not recall where he'd heard about the ACLU donation and said it was "probably overheard it at a party somewhere." Again though, that blog post wasn't what I'd consider reliable. So, on the Balko issue, when does or would a possible conflict of interest rise to the threshold of concern by Wikipedia standards (not intending to criticize, just to self-calibrate)? Iowacornfed (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mayer has an actual conflict of interest, which seems to trump Balko's apparent conflict of interest. I don't think there's a real conflict of interest there, and I don't generally consider a conflict of interest trumping the reliability of the source, but, if one were to use that argument, Mayer would definitely be gone from these articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, as a former Libertarian Party candidate, it is you who has a COI. Abductive (reasoning) 23:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

God that is a stretch. Bonewah (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I needed the laugh -- WP article talk pages can get boring sometimes. Collect (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What's Mayer's COI? A personal grudge? Having an opinion is not in itself a COI to my mind. With Balko you can show a direct chain of (potential) influence at least. Iowacornfed (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what her COI is. Can anybody reading the article believe that she doesn't have a personal grudge against the Kochs? If so, please explain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin, you just stated "Well, Mayer has an actual conflict of interest, ...", which is your opinion? 99.190.84.61 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you claim to have a reason for your bizarre edits across Wikipedia. What is it?

As for Mayer, I suggest you read the article, and try to explain how anyone who does not have a non-journalistic interest in the Kochs could possibly write that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

She may not have an NPOV but that isn't the same as having a COI. Just because I don't like someone doesn't mean that the negative things I may say about them can't be true. Iowacornfed (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been an update to the Balko article to the effect that there is no confirmation, as yet, about the donation to the ACLU. Also, I can't find anything about the legal battle to defeat 'parts 15, 16, and 17' of the Patriot Act that the contribution purportedly funded. This ACLU donation claim should be deleted until the story can be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.206.163 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed until verified. I will not protest reversion of this edit if Balko gets his confirmation. Iowacornfed (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. This is much better sourced than Mayer quoting Greenpeace. She (Mayer) made no mention of requesting confirmation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Mayer cites a Greenpeace report with multiple pages of sources, and you call it into question, while Balko cites a source sufficiently untenable that he himself feels the need to verify it, and yet you claim Balko's information to be of greater reliability? And of sufficiently high reliability to remain in place while it's actively being questioned even by the person who offered it? As I noted, I'm happy to let the claim stand if Balko gets his verification. Until then it is nothing more than rumor and has no place here. Finally, this isn't about Mayer, it's about the NYSD sourced claim. Using this issue as an apparent arrow in your quiver to argue for the removal of Mayer is an improper conflation. Iowacornfed (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Greenpeace report has, in the real world, negative credibility; i.e., something said there is more likely than not fabricated. There is some material accurately copied from primary sources, but the vast majority of material checked by real fact-checking sources is found to be faulty. The fact that Mayer doesn't feel the need to verify what it is the Greenpeace reports speaks to her credibility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, would you be so kind as to provide links to those real fact-checking sources for my personal edification? Iowacornfed (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill of Rights Institute

The credit given for donation to the BoRI is misleading because the BoRI web page credits his Foundation with starting and providing seed money for the BoRI. This suggests that Koch had a far greater role in shaping the purpose and efforts of the Institute than the text of this article now implies. NPOV has been discussed a lot on this talk page so it seems important not to give credit in a misleading way, especially given that the subject of the article has been at least as active in the area of political activism as he has been in the area of philanthropy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.206.163 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

accusations

I specifically state that I have absolutely no COI with regard to this article on the Koch's whatsoever. I ask that anyone making edits to the article based on a belief that I have any COI revert such changes. Collect (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RSN:The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers

Please see: WP:RSN#The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up of Market-Based Management section

I am planning to make significant changes to the Market-Based Management section, and wanted to give other editors a heads-up. The section is quite confusing, and in my opinion it also takes up a disproportionate amount of space.

Despite the title of the section, there is very little information on what Market-Based Management actually is; instead, most of the section consists of quotes from the Steffy interview on a variety of different subjects ("decision rights", oil spill, short-term v long-term success, public v private companies). It is not made clear which of these topics are related to MBM.

I propose to replace the section with the single paragraph below (references omitted). Quotes from the Steffy interview could be put back in a separate section or sections if it is felt that they are important.

Koch's business philosophy, Market-Based Management (MBM), is described in his 2007 book The Science of Success. In an interview with the Wichita Eagle, he said that he was motivated to write the book by Koch Industries' 2004 acquisition of Invista, in order to give new employees a "comprehensive picture" of MBM. According to the website of the Market-Based Management Institute, which Koch founded in 2005, MBM is "based on rules of just conduct, economic thinking, and sound mental models which harnesses [sic] the dispersed knowledge of employees, just as markets harness knowledge in society. It is organized in and interpreted through five dimensions: vision, virtue and talents, decision rights, incentives, and knowledge processes."

--Unweaseler (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

New Yorker article by Jane Mayer and replies

This section is about 399 words long, with about 49 devoted to what the article says and the rest devoted to rebutting it. By any measure that's inappropriate. We should devote more space to what the article says, or less to criticism of it, in order to bring them closer into balance. Otherwise wwe should just rename it to "Replies to the New Yorker article by Jane Mayer".   Will Beback  talk  06:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of removing Mayer entirely, but consensus is against me. However, the fact that the "facts" in the article are false is worthy of note, if the article is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, but have we summarized the facts that we're rebutting? Let's make sure we're give the article itself appropriate weight in proportion to its criticisms. None of the criticisms have gained as much attention as the article itself. Collectively, they may account for nearly as much weight as the article, but not more. Should we split it into an article of its own on Wikipedia?   Will Beback  talk  09:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

See related discussion ...

See more discussion on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family #RFC the nation most prominent funders 99.181.155.158 (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism?

Seems rather like a nice bit of propaganda leaving out almost all negative aspects and criticism. Who paid the writers? --80.121.39.135 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is only one of the articles related to this person. See also: Koch Industries, Political activities of the Koch family, etc.   Will Beback  talk  18:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Odd. I thought it excluded almost all positive aspects and praise. Perhaps it is neutral, after all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

March 2012 edits/Philanthropy Magazine

I just quickly went through and tried to eliminate some of the puffery in recent edits, and add some citation needed templates. I notice that most of the new edits are from a magazine piece published by Philanthropy Roundtable. I don't believe that this stands alone as a reliable, impartial source on the subject of Charles Koch. This is an organization that awarded him a major prize in 2011. I'd just like to open the discussion on how that source should be treated. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Also recent is a The New York Times article by Eric Lichtblau that someone keeps removing. They've reached a three-edit limit for today but I expect they will be back tomorrow. This source pertains to the Cato Institute and is placed in the proper place in this biography (following the sentence on the Cato Institute). Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Susan, I removed this statement: "Koch and his brother filed suit in 2012 to void the shareholder seat of a deceased partner in Cato" because it is not relevant to 'Philanthropic and political activities' of Charles Koch. Upon removing it I suggested that you use the talk page to explain how it is relevant as it has nothing to do with Charles' philanthropy or political activity. The sentence would fit in great in the article about the Cato Institute; perhaps you should place it there instead. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, the statement was not sourced to the NYTimes article you mentioned. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the Cato lawsuit information clearly fits into the philanthropic & political section. Koch has been a Cato donor, so by definition his involvement with Cato is philanthropic. If the information about Cato's founding is housed in this subsection, I don't see why the information about the lawsuit would not sensibly be housed there as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying that Koch was involved in founding Cato is relevant. "The existence of a "hook" [Cato being mentioned] in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant material there." -WP:COATRACK. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've switched the source to the NYT (sorry, I forgot Politico was used here). The lawsuit certainly is or relates to Koch's political or philanthropic activity. What other section could it belong to? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It could belong in the Cato article. Not here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We have an irresolvable difference of opinion. Mr. Koch is rarely in the press. This article actually has a photo of him in it. I don't plan to come back to argue any more with you. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it has that much to do with opinion. You still have not given an explanation of how it is relevant. All you've said is "the lawsuit certainly is or relates to Koch's political or philanthropic activity." Founding an organization can be considered philanthropic activity because it involves giving money to an organization. I don't see how being involved in a lawsuit dealing with an organization can. And I don't see how the article having a photo of him makes any difference whatsoever. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Koch is a shareholder of Cato and is currently involved in litigation to gain majority control–I certainly think that is relevant to his philanthropic & political activities. It is certainly notable in the article as a whole, so if you don't think it belongs under a particular section, where would you suggest it go? His involvement with Cato's founding is in the lede, so I think his present day involvement with Cato is certainly notable to the point of inclusion somewhere in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate: Unless someone can supply sources for the recently added, unsourced information that I tagged yesterday, I think it should be removed. And unless someone can explain why Philanthropy Roundtable should be treated as a reliable, stand alone source for the other new information, I think that information should be removed as well.Safehaven86 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits cannot be used unless reliable sources comment both on the lawsuit and on the relevance to the subject. The latter is lacking. It's not significant in this article; probably in Cato, and possibly in one of the other Koch family articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of Wikipedia policy in mind, or are you just setting down the law a la Moses on Mt Sinai? — goethean ॐ 18:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, actually, and I was on the other side at the time, a few years back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And the lawsuit probably fits better in political activities of the Koch family#Cato Institute, as (1) two Kochs are involved; (2) less detail is given in that appropriate section. It's not particularly relevant here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a link. — goethean ॐ 18:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Isn't altruism contrary to the libertarian ideal of selfishness? TFD (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do we need to create an FAQ? It depends what the definition of is is :) Safehaven86 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Support - per nom, and same in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Xiaphias (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Washington Post Article 08/03/2015

Great article on Charles Koch and Michael Lomax from their sit-down interview on Monday (8/3/15) in Dana Point, CA. Any thoughts on adding any of the material from this article to his BLP? Let me know what you think! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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 [11] 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)

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.

Nutshell 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)

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)

"Classical liberal" is a direct quote from a reliable source - why would you object to it? Collect (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

/* Inclusion of JBS */ His FATHER was a FOUNDER of the JBS, how much more relevant can his membership be? And certainly his numerous political contributions and thrusts of his funded organizations in many ways closely heel to the JBS dogma - this has been amply documented. Who is whitewashing this?!?!? TheForrest (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

Only manually--actually, anything you can imagine can be done; let us know when you figure out how. -- AstroU (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing (Megyn Kelly interviewed)

Wikipedia editors and readers will want to watch this interview! Headline-1: Charles Koch opens up about his 'classical liberal' views

• http://video.foxnews.com/v/4561118939001/charles-koch-opens-up-about-his-classical-liberal-views/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips

Article subtitle: "Oct. 15, 2015 - 7:01 - On 'The Kelly File,' the billionaire addresses attacks from Democrats, motivations behind political involvement" -- AstroU (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The recent NYT Bestselling book Dark Money (2016 - it has TWO reviews in the Times among a dozen other top-tier sources) is investigative journalism concerning primarily the Koch brothers outsized roll in influencing politics through not only direct donations to candidates but funding (and founding) dozens of conservative non-profit think tanks which influence elections and policy. Since they are non-profit they are considered "philanthropy". The book contends there is no more influential single donor in politics than Charles Koch (who is the lead figure of the two), on the left or right. Without him many of these groups would evaporate. It's pretty remarkable when you look into the details, historically I can't think of any parallel. Historically speaking it should be part of the lead section otherwise there is a WEIGHT problem. -- GreenC 22:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 March 2016

Please add the following at the bottom of the list in the External links section:

• {{Goodreads author|105641.Charles_G_Koch|Charles G. Koch}}

– S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oligarch?

The Koch Brothers are Oligarchs.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Charles Koch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808232251/http://hurun.net/EN/HuList.aspx?nid=26 to http://hurun.net/EN/HuList.aspx?nid=26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121214085457/http://topics.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-billionaires-index/ to http://topics.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-billionaires-index/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131114070358/http://www.fmkfoundation.org/history.asp to http://www.fmkfoundation.org/history.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110912054947/http://www.charleskoch.com/newsroom/news_releases_details.aspx?id=904 to http://www.charleskoch.com/newsroom/news_releases_details.aspx?id=904
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20131214102656/http%3A//execrank.com/2013/04/top%2Dprivate%2Dceos/ to http://execrank.com/2013/04/top-private-ceos/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GTpMo1JC?url=http://www.cgkfoundation.org/ to http://www.cgkfoundation.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Charles Koch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406102422/http://www.kochculturaltrust.org/Hist.html to http://www.kochculturaltrust.org/Hist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114065550/http://www.mbminstitute.org/what-is-mbm.cfm to http://www.mbminstitute.org/what-is-mbm.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830194048/http://www.theihs.org/node/456 to http://www.theihs.org/node/456
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110403081408/http://berkeleyearth.org/donors to http://www.berkeleyearth.org/donors
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130126204003/http://www.influenceexplorer.com/individual/koch-charles/c1f4ccc06452407aa9e09a75915b4cff to http://www.influenceexplorer.com/individual/koch-charles/c1f4ccc06452407aa9e09a75915b4cff

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Financial illiteracy

Having been through the rat's nest that calls itself Wikipedia, I'm not even going to begin to try to edit the article. Instead, I will point out that whoever wrote the following is a know-nothing: "In 2006, Koch Industries generated $90 billion in revenue, a growth of 2000 times over, which represents an annual compounded return of 18%."

Children, revenues are not returns. Therefore, revenue growth cannot be an annual compounded return. But hey, I'm only a Wharton M.B.A., and would hate to contradict the high school and young undergrad kids who comprise two-thirds of Wikipedia's editors. So carry on, secure in the belief that you might someday be taken seriously by those who know more than you do. 2001:5B0:50C0:5588:9597:806A:BCDD:A72A (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a darn shame because instead of insulting Wikipedia's editors (really "contributors"), you could have pitched in and improved the site. The way Wikipedia is structured, anyone can edit an article if they think they have found mistakes. In fact, Wikipedia doesn't consider what is written in any entry to be the final word, just the best efforts of the collective internet. It relies on disinterested individuals with knowledge of the subject to correct any mistakes because they care about accuracy, or because they care about future readers/users of the article. A simple explanation accompanying the edit would probably serve to make sure the edit isn't reversed.

Editing any wiki is easy and should definitely not pose a challenge for someone with a Wharton M.B.A. If you had done so, you would be providing a benefit to all future readers of the article. Instead, you have come to a Talk page (which is rarely viewed by people who need the information in the articles) in order to take pot shots at those whom you feel are inferior to yourself. It seems like you have the knowledge and enough ability to write prose. It would have taken about the same amount of time that it took you to write this. Unfortunately your life up to this point, including Wharton, did not successfully inspire you to volunteer a moment of your time to improve the world for the general good, without pay. The thing is, that you are just as responsible for what appears in this article as are those undergrads and high school kids who gave it a shot. Really a shame. Ileanadu (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox redirect problem

The infobox identifies "Chase Koch" as a child of the subject, Charles Koch. The name Chase Koch is highlighted as if there were a Wikipedia article about him. However, clicking on the name causes one to be redirected to Koch Industries. However, Chase is not mentioned anywhere in that article. I don't know how the redirect algorithm works, but I think this one is not at all helpful. Sibling Elizabeth Koch is also highlighted and there is an article for her. Was there an article for Chase at one point? Ileanadu (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

In an internet search I came across this:

https://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Chase_Koch 01:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

references

There footnotes numbered 22 and 23 are identical 107.77.230.6 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Influences, stephen moore, wsj

In the lengthy list of influences by famous thinkers, referenced by Wall Street Journal, hidden behind a paywall, the article was by Stephen Moore, who is NOT a reliable source. Is he directly quoting Koch or what? We should know. Let’s change it to “Stephen Moore says Koch’s been influenced by ....”

By calling the Kochs brothers philanthropists is greately misleading - see The Guardian from 01.11.2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:DBC:B600:21C4:3B95:FEC6:E425 (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Agreed! And calling him a philanthropist is not just misleading, it's a rather sinister joke.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.96.164 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 

Climate change denial

is not even mentioned once on this page. He is the money behind the denial industry! The whitewashing is strong in this article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that pilantrophy and political activities are grouped together is also weird.. I'll re-add the climate denial, but in a more appropriate location. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added subheadings. I think the denialism should be mentioned in the lead. It's an important part of the biography. GPinkerton (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Perfect. Now that it's mentioned in the body, it can be mentioned in the lead. I'm not familiar enough with this guy to know what is due weight,as I only know him from a climate perspective. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, highly important. GPinkerton (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)