Talk:David Koch/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:BLP applies

Contentious claims requre factual sources. Sources saying that people are "the Standard Oil of our times" and the like are not biographical in the slightest. Really! Collect (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. This quote from an impeccable and well-cited reliable source is highly relevant to the biography of this man. You persist in reverting well-cited and relevant information, which is in full accordance with WP:BLP, without any reason given other than "it does not meet BLP". Since this material is very well-cited, highly relevant, and (other editors maintain) in accord with BLP, you need to provide specific reason(s) why you believe it doesn't before you revert again. Please note that you are at 2RR already. Arjuna (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the sourcing is impeccable and the objection here lacking plausibility. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The source being used for a contentious claim is an editorial piece - any opinions therefore must be marked clearly as "opinion." The NYT RS status does not extend to having opinion pieces cited as fact in BLPs <g>. Really. And there is clear precedent for this position. Collect (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me from BLP guidelines whether an op-ed by one of the most respected NY Times columnists is in fact an "editorial" (op-eds being a related but different thing than editorials). But just for sake of argument, assuming Rich is not in fact a reliable source, you deleted the whole section despite the fact that those statements had multiple citations - including others from the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker. If you have a problem with the Rich citation, why not delete just that reference? Or do you have a fundamental problem with the critical nature of the material? Arjuna (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the content removed was not sourced to an editorial piece. What is wrong with the Mayers source, material cited to which was also removed? Material not cited to Rich should be restored immediately. — goethean ॐ 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Goethean. See the discussion at the BLP page as well. The material removed by Collect and Off2riorob should be reinstated, with the exception of deleting the Frank Rich reference to the statements of fact (BLP policy allows op-eds to be cited for statements of opinion, but not statements of fact). However, it is entirely consistent with BLP to add additional material containing a critique of Koch from the Rich piece. I'm at 1RR today, and I want to stay well on the side of the law so I will leave it to someone else to reinstate the material for now - but I think one can proceed on this front with knowledge that they are on solid ground. P.S. KeptSouth, FYI your effort to reinstate the Meyer citation will be moot, as it will then appear in the list of references. Arjuna (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A Google search for Koch "tea party" gives "about 328,000 results". Have your pick. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me a single WP article where "Google hits" is used as a "relaible source." Clue: You will not find one. Not a single example on WP shuld exist. See [1] for the section where an IP souught to use ghits as a "source" on "Teabaggers and Astroturfing". Failed. Collect (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Petri was saying, Collect. S/he was making the point that there are more than ample sources for the claim that the Kochs fund tea party activities. It is a non-controversial, well-documented statement of fact. Since I cannot imagine that any good editor would have a problem with that, if you can please clarify exactly what you find objectionable, that would be helpful. Best, Arjuna (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Find specific factual reliable sources which make the specific claim about the person the BLP is about. Simple. "Google hits" is not a "reliable source." Collect (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it would not be difficult to find 200 reliable sources for the fact. The question is how many we need and which are the ones we choose. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Restoring a See also link

A See also link to Richard Scaife was removed with the reason given: "tangent". However, Scaife engages in similar activities, has a similar background to the Kochs, and laid a groundwork or a pattern for the political activities of the Kochs. Therefore there is a relationship between these people -- they have similar achievements, and a See also link is informative to readers.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) says

"Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:
Related person – made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005" —Manual of style, See also section

Scaife's bio is related; he is a billionaire; and he engaged in similar activities of promoting a political view through massive contributions. I included a brief description of the similar activities to show the relevance of the link, and will do so again when I restore the link now.

In addition, "tangent" is precisely the point of many See alsos. The MOS says:

"Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."—Manual of style, See also section

Finally, a link has been made between these persons by several journalists and commentators lately, although their generally similar achievements, and similar backgrounds and activities are enough, in and of themselves to justify a See also link. I am restoring the link now, and request further convincing discussion and or consensus should anyone want to remove the link again. The liberal and broad view expressed in WP policy for See alsos clearly allows the addition of link to a person who has engaged in similar, related activities. — KeptSouth (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP and an extraordinarily tangential connection do not mix. Collect (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a controversial issue. Assuming that a "see also" section is in compliance with BLP (I haven't looked it up, so I don't know - assuming someone else will) then it seems perfectly reasonable to add Scaife as suggested by KeptSouth. But if so, then including George Soros would also seem reasonable (although they come from opposite POV, structurally they are the same and would be appropriate encyclopediacally (is that a word?!?). Arjuna (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Soros as well -- and all who are billionaire (?) politically involved people. Add about twenty or so - but do not pick and choose <g>. Collect (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Scaife is more like the Kochs in that they are all on the conservative/libertarian side, and have tried to keep their $ contributions under wraps. However, I have no objection to adding Soros - another rich man who uses vast quantities of his wealth to influence the political process. None of this is in violation of BLP policies, by the way. We are not doing see alsos to criminals or terrorists, just to like-minded rich guys who use their wealth in similar ways. The effect on the US as a democracy is cumulative, another reason to add a few see alsos. KeptSouth (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Twenty or so would be excessive, since Wikipedia is not a list or directory. I hope we can all agree that there is no substitute for good editorial judgement. Arjuna (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

←[Redent] I was only talking about adding one person, Scaife, as a See also link, someone else asked about Soros -- that makes two, not twenty. No, there is no substitute for judgment, and no need to discuss whether we are in danger of casting aside "good editorial judgment" or creating long lists. — Regards, KeptSouth (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity Foundation

Point of interest: Koch's Americans for Prosperity Foundation has been formally charged with violating their tax-exempt status due to crossing the line into political campaigning. Note that the charge comes from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and is only a formal charge (no ruling as yet) at this stage. However, it seems relevant to include on the AFP article and perhaps at some stage worth a mention on the Koch article itself. Reliable citation to [NY Times article]. Arjuna (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is any charge levied on Mr. Koch? Absent any, it does not belong. Note also this is "political silly season" in the US, and thousands of charges are bandied about. Generally they all get dismissed after the election, as it is nearly impossible to examine charges in detail in six weeks - which is why they get made now. Collect (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Charges are made now because that is when they are happening, and generally the idea is to move expeditiously. Note that I said "at some stage". Best, Arjuna (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Note also this is "political silly season"; Noted. — goethean ॐ 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropy

His foundation also supports non-political organizations like PBS. I heard he was also involved with some kind of education foundation, does anyone have information on this? - Corvus (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the Mayer's New Yorker article, there's a lot on this subject. BTW, I would agree that a section on their philanthropic efforts (of the non-Tea Party persuasion) are relevant to the article. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have detailed Koch's support of non-political organizations in my post below. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. LibertarianLuvr (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Who has been pounding the table about this guy?

Just curious since this guy has become the cause de jour to pile on. How many time can we say Tea Party and opposes Obama in the same section?? --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

3after3, I don't find your revert very helpful at all as it goes against the consensus on the talk page and elsewhere that the material is appropriate and well-cited. If you find redundancies, then by all means a clean-up edit is most welcome. A major, wholescale revert as you did, which based on your comments seems also a POV-push, is singularly unhelpful. I am at 1RR today (2 if you count a rvv of a drive by vandalism rv), so it's not going to be me, but I encourage someone else to do so. 3, please do not edit disruptively. Thank you. Arjuna (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Um -- I suggest that your assertion about consensus is not well-founded. Collect (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you had made a single contention that proved well-founded, I would agree with you. If you have legitimate objections to the material, you should cite them. As it stands now, your claims appear to be without foundation in Wikipedia policy. Arjuna (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tryt NPA someday -- as for "single contention": Almost everyone agrees pmn RS/N and BLP/N that Rich is valid, at best, for cite as opinion - which was my "claim." The "coke" bit is per WP:Pronunciation, also a valid "claim" on my part. As for the bit about him funding "front groups" I suggest that it is most certainly "contentious" per se, as evinced by Koch's statement about that sort of claim. No need to point out again that we are in "silly season" when all sorts of extraneous material (Prescott Bush being a Nazi, etc.) gets pushed. care to redact your personal aspersions supra? Collect (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read this. Best, Arjuna (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

New York magazine did an expose of his financing of the Tea Party movement. It is unsurprising that some editors might want to hide this information from our readers. — goethean ॐ 23:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, that 68.255.2.164 (talk · contribs) is a likely sockpuppet of banned user Joehazelton (talk · contribs). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Kochs have also been a cause du jour of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and David Weigel. The timing is good, it's almost September.

I agree, some of the material added has been redundant. However, this tends to happen when there's a lot of deleting going on. People need to read the recent articles, and add some fresh summary material. - KeptSouth (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How the Tea Party story broke?

It is strange how people in Moscow can be better informed than people in Washington, D.C. The Tea Party movement funding by Koch Industries was first exposed by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine of the eXile, a Moscow based English language former tabloid and current Internet newspaper. The first article appeared on Playboy.com in about February 2009. Here is the copy at the eXile:

Mark Ames and Yasha Levine (February 27, 2009). "Exposing The Rightwing PR Machine: Is CNBC's Rick Santelli Sucking Koch?". the eXile.

In August 2009 The Washington Post runs a similar story:

Dan Eggen and Philip Rucker (August 16, 2009). "Loose Network of Activists Drives Reform Opposition". The Washington Post.

Mark Ames comments on the story the same day:

Mark Ames (August 16, 2009). "Washington Post Links FreedomWorks, Tea Party, Koch Family, Only 5 Months After Ames & Levine". the eXile.

In April 2010 Yasha Levine exposes new details of the story: bring in grandpa Fredrick C. Koch and Uncle Joe:

Yasha Levine (April 17, 2010). "The Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement". AlterNet.
Yasha Levine (April 17, 2010). "A People's History of Koch Industries: How Stalin Funded the Tea Party Movement". the eXile.

In July 2010 Rachel Maddow on her show on MSNBC calls Koch the tea party's puppet master:

"Meet David Koch, Tea Party funder". The Rachel Maddow Show. Jul 28, 2010.

Looking at the version history of this article, it seems that the story only hit the mainstream American media last week with the article by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker magazine. I will repost the link here, as it seems to be under constant edit warring in the article.

Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". The New Yorker.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – The reason why I am listing all this here is that it will help us identify the most reliable and relevant sources for the Tea Party connection. If I have missed something relevant, please comment. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

...Thank you for the links and discussion. Here is the link in full as when I clicked the link it failed/fails: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer 99.155.146.103 (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Curiously enough, the Russian cites you aver would not make it to WP:RS. WP is not a medium for political propaganda of any stripe at all. And connecting the living brothers to Stalin wouold require an extraordinarily good reliable source = which is not present. Collect (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Stalin stuff would have to go to the Fredrick C. Koch article. Sourcing shouldn't be too difficult, he even wrote a book about it:

Fred C. Koch (1960). A Business Man Looks at Communism. Wichita, Kansas: self published.

I bet you would love to use this as a source someplace! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As a "self published" book, per WP:RS it is valid only for his personal opinions, at most. Likely an interesting read. Collect (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Need specifics on how much money spent where from fact-based sources

I dont want to get overly involved with this, but all these general accusations from mostly opinion pieces really don't impress readers much. And don't forget that Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion says: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

Fewer mentions from real news sources with more statistics would make the editor's points better. If no such statistics can be found, then one must wonder if there's some heavily POV editing that should be deleted. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Vague"

An anonymous user removed the following bolded information, saying it was too vague:

"The article said that the Koch brothers are major funders to the U.S. Tea Party movement, as well as outspending ExxonMobil from 2005-2008 in giving money to organizations fighting mitigation of global warming (the current climate change) legislation,"

I suspect this is more of a semantic scuffle about how to describe climate change, but in any case I don't find this too vague (the source is somewhat vague also) and the description matches the sourcing provided. — e. ripley\^talk 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to what relevance Exxon has to this BLP. BLPs are not collections of trivia comparing expenditures between two unrelated groups. Collect (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I view that as a piece of context that helps put information into perspective. It says something about just how influential someone is, and also how serious they are about an issue, when their personal political contributions on that issue eclipses that of a large, powerful multinational corporation. — e. ripley\^talk 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope 0 it serves primarily as COATRACK to insert claims that Exon and the Koch's are somehow linked. No article links the two other than in this unrelated comparison which does not belong in a BLP, and more thans a cite "He is shorter than Lincoln" would beling in a cite, etc. Collect (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this contention absurd. A plain reading of that sentence suggests no formal connection whatsoever; it merely contextualizes the extent of Koch funding relative to other large, more prominent donors. Arjuna (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it links them in any significant way, beyond serving as a contextual barometer as I mentioned above. I'm afraid I disagree with you here, though you're welcome to your opinion of course. — e. ripley\^talk 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But it has no numbers to show if it's significant. Contributions of $$2,000? $10,000? And how much money did supporters of these initiatives give to any of the other sides? $50,000? $100,000? I don't know and don't have strong POV on the issue, but like to see facts to help me make up my own mind not just vague accusations, spins and smear campaigns. I'm personally inclined to delete the whole thing at some future point if more concrete info isn't forth coming. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, frankly -- you'd probably need to read through the Greenpeace report, which is where this comes from originally, to see raw data. It's a fair question though. If anybody wants to look through it, here's the report that's referenced by the New Yorker piece: [2]. — e. ripley\^talk 19:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this ventures very closely into WP:OR territory and is probably best avoided. Since the information about Koch vs Exxon funding is there simply to provide context, specific figures are totally unnecessary and indeed would be "noise" in the article. Arjuna (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually as I'm thinking about it more, if we do include information originally gleaned from Greenpeace, we should probably identify it as such, given the source. I haven't paid more than passing attention to these three articles but if I get some time today I may give them a closer read, because some of the information is fairly sloppy. — e. ripley\^talk 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I took a look at the Greenpeace report, here are the figures they give. They're not insignificant. "From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to

organizations of the 'climate denial machine.'" However much is obscured here. Which foundations gave to what? How are they defining "organizations of the climate denial machine?" This is interesting information but I'm not sure how much credence to give it, given the source. — e. ripley\^talk 15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

I am a little concerned about the phrasing and some of the sourcing in this paragraph:

Koch, his brother Charles, George Soros, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, each contributed $10 million to the American Civil Liberties Union to defeat parts of the USA PATRIOT Act.[10] Parts 15, 16 and 17 of the act were then overturned in U.S. federal court in the Southern District of New York. Marion Bowman, chief legal counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, vowed to take this decision to the United States court of appeals.

The bit about the $10 million donation to overturn portions of the PATRIOT Act seems inadequately sourced. Right now it's sourced to something called "LA Social Diary" which it appears is published by something called Quest Magazine, which appears to be some sort of fashion magazine. Surely there's a better source? (Though I can't seem to find one at the moment.) I also am not sure what point it serves to mention that someone "vowed" to appeal the decision. It seems irrelevant to his biography. I'm going to excise the entire thing unless a better source can be found. — e. ripley\^talk 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for that sort of stuff - "Quest Magazine" likely does not qualify, as you note. Collect (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications of introduction

Hi, there are a couple of things that I wanted to clarify in David Koch's introductory paragraph. I am an admirer of the Koch family and my employer has Koch Industries as a client, but all my suggestions will be in compliance with WP:COI, WP:BPL, WP:NPOV, and other wikipedia rules. I also will be suggesting all changes here first to maximize transparency and work out all issues first.

The introduction of the page characterizes Koch Industries as having "major petroleum and natural gas holdings." This does not appear to be complete. The Koch Industries website notes 8 categories of business: "polymers and fibers", "minerals", "process and pollution control", "ranching", "refining and chemicals", "commodity trading and services", "fertilizers", and "forest and consumer products." One of the subsidiaries, Koch Exploration Company, LLC, does "acquire, develop, and trade" petroleum and natural gas properties." But this is just one. It seems that for completeness, more of the industries should be listed.

In addition, the word "major" is not encyclopedic. And there is some editorialization in limiting the described industries to "petroleum and natural gas holdings."

The Koch Industries page describes the business as "American private conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments" and notes the subsidiaries.

Perhaps those descriptors could be added to the description of Koch Industries. Or even, considered variously as subcategories of the language of "manufacturing, trading, and investments."

Thoughts? MBMadmirer (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first suggestion -- adding a description of every industry that the company trades in -- I wouldn't support. This isn't an article about the company and as such it would be way too much detail that's largely irrelevant to a person's biography page (besides which, someone can find out by clicking on the page for the company). I think it's fair to say that they're most well known for their energy activities and so that seems to me to be an appropriate descriptor in this venue. I would support perhaps a change along the lines of "petroleum and natural gas holdings, among others." Discussions about potential changes to the Koch Industries page should be placed at Talk:Koch Industries. — e. ripley\^talk 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I should clarify. I didn't mean to suggest listing them all, but that there is an inconsistency between this page and the Koch Industries page and Koch Industries seems more neutral. I am not trying to litigate the content of that page, just bring them into agreement. That clearer? MBMadmirer (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Could you go ahead and put forward a suggested change to the page then? By that I mean, could you propose some language you think would be better here. — e. ripley\^talk

Currently, the article says "Koch Industries, a conglomerate with major petroleum and natural gas holdings". As I said, the "major" is non-neutral and "petroleum and natural gas holdings" only describe only one relatively small portion of their business. I would replace that description with the one from Koch Industries. That says "private conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments". Make sense? MBMadmirer (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that would, as I mentioned above, end up being way too much information on the company than should be included in someone's bio page. It's a fine thumbnail description for the company's page, but this article isn't about the company. I think they're best-known for their involvement in energy issues and so I don't really see it as a problem here, but if we're going to change it, I would prefer it simply be linked as Koch Industries and if anybody wants to know more they can click on the link. — e. ripley\^talk 11:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just linking to the Koch Industries page strikes me as the most reasonable solution too. Litigating a description absolutely shouldn't happen on this page. I do think that the current description does not capture the company. "Petroleum and natural gas holdings" suggests being a producer, when the historical business was actually refining. And now, the consumer facing products are paper products, as in Georgia-Pacific. Just linking to Koch Industries ducks all these issues and the most accurate. I like. Should you do it, or should I? MBMadmirer (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead? I don't see any problem with it. Thanks for the good discussion. — e. ripley\^talk 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the good discussion. MBMadmirer (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity reacts to The New Yorker

Of interest? Americans for Prosperity has links reacting to The New Yorker, such as ... "Matt Welch of Reason (magazine) wrote in support of Stoll and labeled the New Yorker article a "hit-piece". [5] (http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/24/in-which-left-wing-think-tanks)" 99.155.156.35 (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

David H. Koch considered Superclass?

David H. Koch considered Superclass? 99.190.88.171 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same guy as featured in "Air Crash Investigation"/Mayday Season 8, Episode 4? Was he in the USAir Flight 1493/Skywest Airlines Flight 5569 crash? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.46.150 (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Collect (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Some concerns with the advocacy section

I have several concerns with this section. David Koch has a long record of giving to advocacy oriented non-profits and this giving has been the the subject of a lot of recent discussion. Laying out all the details seems important. I would suggest changing the first two paragraphs to something like this:

Koch founded, sat on the board of, and donated to the free-market Citizens for Sound Economy and Citizens for Sound Economy Foundation in 1984. In 2004, these organizations separated with Citizens for a Sound Economy becoming FreedomWorks, which Koch and Koch Industries deny having provided any support to, and Citizens for Sound Economy Foundation, which was renamed Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which Koch continues to sit on the board of and give money to. A related advocacy organization, Americans for Prosperity, was founded then, and Koch has donated money to that, but does not sit on its board. Both FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity have been linked to the US Tea Party movement. In addition, Koch sits on the board and gives money to the libertarian Cato Institute and Reason Foundation.

I believe that this restates everything more completely, more accurately, and captures his relationship to the boards of these organizations. All of this information is in the citations that are in there or on the websites of those organizations.

Thoughts? MBMadmirer (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Per reinstated addition in this article; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#.22Anarcho-Totalitarianism.22_source for quote regarding bid for USA Executive branch against Ronald Reagan in 1980's ... "Anarcho-Totalitarianism" not a "movement" per se, so it doesn't have a wp article I have seen, unless you are counting the Tea party movement. A major conservative voice (William F. Buckley Jr.) calling right of Reagan is notable, in essence stated these behaviors are Radical right. 99.190.88.44 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Anarcho=capitalism" is from van den Haag, not Buckley. Collect (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that this is supposed to be responsive to my comment. Do you have any issues with the change above? I agree about all the anarcho-capitalism stuff. Kind of weird and not-really on point. Certainly not WP:NPOV and encyclopedic. MBMadmirer (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just curious - "MBM" is from Charles G. Koch's 2007 book "The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World's Largest Private Company", right User:MBMadmirer? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Am an admirer, as I point out. MBMadmirer (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

MBMadmirer, are you being paid directly or indirectly by Koch/Koch Industries or its affiliates to manage their public relations / image / online reputation? It would be useful to have any of this out in the open. Thanks, Arjuna (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I also have several problems with your proposed edit, which strikes me as written as though it was written by a PR person (whether you are or not). No offense, but it isn't particularly well-written from a grammatical standpoint. It also seems to sanitize the Koch's relationship with those organizations that are of a highly tendentious orientation. Much of the other material in the current Advocacy section is immaculately cited and fully consistent with Wikipedia guidelines including BLP. As public figures, scrubbing the article of cited content critical of the Kochs or the organizations they provide significant support for is unlikely to meet with unfettered success. Best regards, Arjuna (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Arjuna, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. To your direct question: no. My employer does work with Koch on some things, but not that. That is disclosed on my talk page and was mentioned in my first comment here. On to the actual substance here. I am not talking about removing any citations or information. In fact, I am interested in adding both information and citations. In particular, I am adding that David Koch sits on the board and has also given to the 4 organizations. This would also create a uniform way of referring to these rather than a range of different ways. As I indicated, none of the references would be removed. Also, this would not remove the 3rd paragraph about the Mayer article. Would you suggest any changes to that paragraph that would address your issues? Thanks! MBMadmirer (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made a copy of the page and made the changes that I am suggesting in my userspace at User:MBMadmirer/David H. Koch. The change is that I have replaced the first two paragraphs of the advocacy section with one that captures more information and the systematic relationship to these groups. Would love thoughts. I also think that making the relationship more obvious and uniform (gives money to, sits on boards, etc) is both more encyclopedic and addresses potential exaggeration and therefore WP:BLP issues. Would love some input. MBMadmirer (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? My thoughts are that such a whitewash would obviously be contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and its readers. Dlabtot (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MBMA for the clarification. It would be helpful to have the two versions (current and the one proposed by you) side by side so other editors can more easily compare.

Current as of 23 September 2010:

Koch founded the Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1984, a group that advocated for lower taxes and less regulation of business. He presently funds Americans for Prosperity, an advocacy group that has close ties to the U.S. Tea Party movement and that opposes much of U.S. President Barack Obama's policies and legislative agenda.

Koch currently serves on the boards of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation. His brother, Charles Koch, has also been active in organizing and funding foundations and think-tanks such as the Cato Institute.

In August 2010, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker wrote an article about the political spending of David and Charles Koch. The article said that the Koch brothers are major funders of the U.S. Tea Party movement, giving money to organizations disabling mitigation of global warming legislation, and underwriting a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and groups mounting opposition campaigns against Obama Administration policies, ranging from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program. The editorial cites Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity as saying, "The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times." Koch has responded by calling the article "an absolute slander and a highly inaccurate and dishonest attack on the two of us and our great company, Koch Industries".

Proposed by MBMadmirer:

Koch founded, sat on the board of, and donated to the free-market Citizens for Sound Economy and Citizens for Sound Economy Foundation in 1984. In 2004, these organizations separated with Citizens for a Sound Economy becoming FreedomWorks, which Koch and Koch Industries deny having provided any support to, and Citizens for Sound Economy Foundation, which was renamed Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which Koch continues to sit on the board of and give money to. A related advocacy organization, Americans for Prosperity, was founded then, and Koch has donated money to that, but does not sit on its board. Both FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity have been linked to the US Tea Party movement. In addition, Koch sits on the board and gives money to the libertarian Cato Institute and Reason Foundation.

In August 2010, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker wrote an article about the political spending of David and Charles Koch. The article said that the Koch brothers are major funders of the U.S. Tea Party movement, giving money to organizations disabling mitigation of global warming legislation, and underwriting a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and groups mounting opposition campaigns against Obama Administration policies, ranging from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program. The editorial cites Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity as saying, "The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times." Koch has responded by calling the article "an absolute slander and a highly inaccurate and dishonest attack on the two of us and our great company, Koch Industries".

Do I have that correct? Best, Arjuna (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You got it. I wanted editors to be able to see the complete text with references so it was clear that I was only adding well-sourced information. Thanks for looking at this. I am very much open to tweaks. MBMadmirer (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the comments here, I have updated the proposed text as follows:

In 1984, Koch founded, served as Chairman of the board of directors of, and donated to the free-market Citizens for Sound Economy Foundation and Citizens for Sound Economy. In 2004, these organizations separated into, respectively, Americans for Prosperity Foundation and FreedomWorks. Koch continues as Chairman of the Board and gives money to Americans for Prosperity Foundation and gives to a related advocacy organization Americans for Prosperity. The Washington Post has reported that both Koch and FreedomWorks deny that Koch has provided funding to FreedomWorks.[9]. Both FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity have been linked to the US Tea Party movement, which opposes much of U.S. President Barack Obama's policies and legislative agenda. In addition, Koch sits on the board and gives money to the libertarian Cato Institute and Reason Foundation.[3][10][2]

This cleans up and updates the history and makes it clearer who Koch gives money to and supports, all in consideration of WP:BLP. I would like to move boldly forward on this, but remain open to continued feedback on this. Thanks all! MBMadmirer (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hearing, no objections, I am moving forward with this. Thank you everyone for your thoughts. Looking forward to additional conversations, improvements, etc. MBMadmirer (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

"Anarcho-capitalism" seems more related, and apparently common term than "Anarcho-Totalitarianism"; from wp article Anarchism#Post-classical_currents: "Anarcho-capitalism developed from radical anti-state libertarianism and individualist anarchism, drawing from Austrian School economics, study of law and economics and public choice theory,[132] ..." backed by The New Yorker article: Freedom School Robert LeFevre, Friedrich von Hayek, etc ... or maybe "hard-line libertarian" as is stated in his VP-backing brother Charles' wp article states, as Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism doesn't clarify. 99.54.142.52 (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Which has zilch relevance in a BLP here. Collect (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Collect. Arjuna (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropy section

I've been following the David Koch for years and am an admirer of many of the organizations and causes he supports. Much of the current wikipedia article focuses on his political advocacy, but much of his arts, education and medical research contributions are missing. I've detailed those contributions below and would like to propose adding the following to the philanthropy section. Thank you.

Since 2000, David Koch has pledged and/or donated more than $600 million to the arts, education and medical research. (Source: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/02/koch-brothers-give-more-to-charity-than-to-right-wing-causes/).

Koch has been a trustee of the American Ballet Theater for 25 years (Source: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/society/insider/american-ballet-theatre-celebrates-70th-season-david-kochs-723608.html) and has contributed more than $6 million to the theater. (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-17/david-koch-toasted-by-michelle-obama-caroline-kennedy-at-n-y-ballet-gala.html)

In 2006, he made a $20 million gift to the American Museum of Natural History, creating the David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing. (Source: http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/index4.html)

Koch contributed $20 million to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in 2006. (Source: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/david_koch_gives_20_million_for_hopkins_cancer_research)

He contributed $100 million in 2007, to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to help fund the construction of a new 350,000-square-foot (33,000 m2) research and technology facility to serve as the home of the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research.[15] The center is expected to open in 2010 on Main Street in the heart of the Cambridge campus. (Source: http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/articles/2007/10/10/mit_gets_100m_for_cancer_center/)

In 2008, Koch contributed $25 million to the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston to establish the David Koch Center for Applied Research in Genitourinary Cancers (Source: http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2008/10/15/Profile-of-Billionaire-David-Koch/index3.html#ixzz0wPpzCWnj)

Koch has contributed $41million to the Prostate Cancer Foundation, including $5 million to a collaborative project in the field of nanotechnology. (Source: http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEpH/b.5801629/k.8E55/David_H_Koch_8211_Prostate_Cancer_Foundation_NanoMedicine_Gift_Announced.htm) Koch contributed $30 million to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City (Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189124817352914.html)

Koch contributed $15 million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell Medical Center Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189124817352914.html)

In 2007, Koch contributed $25 million to The Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City (Source:http://www.joshfriedland.com/pdfs/HSS_DtoR_13_Fall_2007.pdf)

In July 2008, after Koch pledged $100 million over 10 years to renovate the New York State Theater in the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, it was announced that the theater would be renamed the David H. Koch Theater.[12] (Source: http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/index4.html)

Koch gave $10 million to the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (Source: http://www.cshl.edu/Archive/cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-surpasses-capital-campaign-goal)

David Koch pledged $10 million (to renovate the outdoor fountains at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Source: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100627/ANNIVERSARY/100619869/1072)

David Koch contributed $7 million to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova, (Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ ).

He made a contribution of $15 million to the National Museum of Natural History in 2009 to create the new David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, which opened on the museum's 100th anniversary of its location on the National Mall on March 17, 2010.[13]

David financed the construction of Deerfield Academy's $68 million state-of-the-art Koch Center for mathematics, science and technology. (Source:http://scroll.deerfield.edu/?p=3032)

In 2009, David Koch was is the national sponsor of The Bill of Rights Institute's 2009-2010 high school essay contest, "Being an American". (Source:http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/News/pressRoom/BAAEC2009NationalRelease.pdf)

Koch gave $350,000 to the MIT Athletic Department (Source: http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/index4.html)

Boards and Appointments

A prostate cancer survivor,[14] Koch sits on the Board of Directors of the Prostate Cancer Foundation and is the eponym of the David H. Koch Chair of the Prostate Cancer foundation, a position currently held by Dr. Jonathan Simons.

The Deerfield Academy named David the first and only Lifetime Trustee. (Source: http://scroll.deerfield.edu/?p=3032)

In 2007, Mr. Koch was honored with the Double Helix Medal for Corporate Leadership from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for supporting research that, “improves the health of people everywhere.” (Source: http://www.cshl.edu/Archive/31-million-raised-at-cold-spring-harbor-laboratorys-2007-double-helix-medals-dinner)

LibertarianLuvr (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS, contributions which have been analysed by secondary sources should be in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

LibertarianLuvr (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I've done a little more research and found secondary sourcing for all of the contributions listed. Am I ok to move forward and post this content to the article?

Do these sources analyse the contributions? I note that figures for the money he is spending on political causes are absent from the article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your research on this, LL. I agree that it is perfectly appropriate to mention Mr. Koch's many philanthropic efforts, but an exhaustive listing is neither desirable nor appropriate (Wikipedia is [WP:LIST|not a list). As Abductive points out, his contributions to political organizations or causes don't have similarly comprehensive listings (nor should they be). Perhaps you might condense these into a summary, with appropriate references as you have already documented? Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Arjuna, you make a really, really good point. The things that I am talking about are medical philanthropy: hospitals, science research, etc. The giving currently reflected on the page is arts and education, primarily science education. Perhaps these should be broken out into subsections or extended paragraphs that indicate the amount and scope that he gives to. Thoughts? LibertarianLuvr (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Including his political advocacy? — goethean ॐ 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would make a huge amount of sense to move the Advocacy section into the philanthropy section and make sure it is as complete as possible. MBMadmirer (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my proposed philanthropy section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LibertarianLuvr/David-Koch#Medical_Research. This should clear up some of the confusion, being that much of what you'll see is what is already on the page. Please let me know your thoughts. I think it makes sense to put advocacy in this section as well, I just don't have that information. LibertarianLuvr (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's doesn't appear that anyone has any additional comments to this section. I'm going to post it now. Thanks for your input and please feel free to offer suggestions or improvements at a later date. Thanks again for your time. LibertarianLuvr (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't do the references correctly. I cleaned up part of the education section. Please clean up the links in accordance with WP:Cite MBMadmirer (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"a billionaire who donates to political groups"

Warren Buffett and Lawrence Ellison were described as billionares who donate to political groups. While the contributions of Soros and Scaife are well sourced, as are Koch, is there sourcing for Buffett and Ellison's political contributions? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Both are well noted - try Newsmeat etc. if you really demur <g>. Or Opensecrets.org. Each is well up there as a political contributor. BTW, it is not normal to ask for refs for any "see also" type of blue-linked list. [3] as example. You are welcome. Collect (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, the primary sourced, OR you just asked me to do is problematic, because it includes only about $10,000 worth of donations, and none to "political groups." (after entering the catchpa and clicking enter, I get donations to 3 politicians and a PAC) I considered just reverting you, but decided that would be inapropriate. Is there evidence in reliable secondary sources that WB and LE donate to political groups? Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh? List I found showed six figure total contributions. How do you miss $25K to DNC from Buffett and the like? I rather think the DNC is, in fact, a "political organization" <g>. Collect (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no six figure total contributions when you type in the catchpa and hit submit. Perhaps you should explain what you do to get to a six-figure contribution? Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the word "total" above. Total for cycles covered is about $130K. Which, indeed, is "six figures." Including $28,500 to the DNC. Collect (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with this point. It strikes me that Peter Lewis could be added. Both LE and WB have given political contributions. The question is whether they have given to advocacy-related organizations, which is a slightly different question to my mind than "political contributions." MBMadmirer (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed WB and LE, added Peter Lewis, and noted what type of political causes the individuals support (conservative, liberal, decrim of marajuana). Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, Collect, it's very confusing - you write now that "any claims relating to a living person must then be sourced", but before you said "BTW, it is not normal to ask for refs for any "see also" type of blue-linked list." Could you explain? Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A link is not a "claim" in itself - Once you make an assertion in this article about any living person, a reliable source must be presented. That is how WP:BLP works. Either just use the bluelink, or, if a claim is added, furnish a reliable source for the claim. Simple. Collect (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Weren't you making a claim about living persons when you said they donated to political causes, which you said didn't require a source? I'm so confused! Hipocrite (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In a sense, perhaps. I specifically did not identify in any way any perception about those causes. Saying they are "conservative" or "liberal" makes a much stronger statement of opinion about those contributions. Once we delve into opinions, we must use reliable sources. Saying 'John Doe' is "six feet tall" is probably not a matter of opinion. Saying he "gives to radical fascist causes" is decidedly opinion, and requitres reliable sources. Do you see this? Collect (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. You made claims about a living person you thought were totally uncontroversial, so you didn't think they needed refs. However, it turns out your claims are disputed and certainly not yet reliably sourced, so you were wrong. I made claims I thought were totally uncontroversial, so I didn't think they needed refs. However, it turns out that you might (though I doubt you really do, in your heart of hearts - I mean really, you dispute Soros funds liberals???) dispute that, so I provided refs. Certainly you see the difference. Hipocrite (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of including other activist billionaires in the "See also" section? If it's this controversial I suggest just deleting them. Will Beback talk 23:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

True. Without some real set of criteria for objectively deciding whom to list, the list is not a benefit to the article. Collect (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there is consensus on this. I would add that just about any list of people is subject to some concerns about arbitrariness and WP:NPOV. And descriptions are problematic. I would definitely quibble about the description of Peter Lewis, but this page is clearly not the appropriate place to litigate that. So let's just remove the whole thing. MBMadmirer (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the list isn't helpful. You might want to add a line to the article stating that he's on the OpenSecrets.org Heavy Hitters list of individuals, as that's something specific. Flatterworld (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems eminently sensible to me. 75.89.101.212 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I just found and added this from FollowTheMoney.org as apparently Wikipedians aren't the only people interested in how the Koch brothers are spending their money politically. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the names, per the discussion here. Will Beback talk 08:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus could not be more clear, I suspect. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(out) BRW, I suggest similar concerns exist at the other Koch pages, and would suggest that this consensus would be a good start in those articles. Collect (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:American Conservative Movements

Even if Koch is clearly conservative, he is not an "American Conservative Movement", nor is the the spokesperson for an "American Conservative Movement" (as some of the people listed in the template are), nor did he (the last time I checked) appear in the template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Koch brothers (improperly, in my opinion) appears in the template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Richard Mellon Scaife appearing on the template? Abductive (reasoning) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is not the place to work this out. Instead, it should probably be done on the Template:American Conservative Movements talk page. There, one person has noted that there are a number of concerns about the list and argues that perhaps the list should be removed.MBMadmirer (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is normal to add a template to all articles that have entries on it. Either the Kochs should be removed from the template or the template should be added to the articles. Will Beback talk 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Updating the advocacy section

Currently, the second paragraph of the advocacy section focuses on a single article from August. This article is an expose of Koch involvement in politics. Since then, there have been more stories and actions by very high profile figures and media. I thought it appropriate to update.

I have two proposals. The first one is to update the second paragraph of that section with the paragraph below. The second proposal is to consider moving that paragraph to a Controversy section. That way, the current Advocacy section could be more static and encyclopedic, perhaps also making it easier to abide by WP:BLP. We might even consider folding the advocacy section into the philanthropy section as a subsection, parallel to Arts, Medical Research, and Education.

The current text is:

In August 2010, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker wrote an article about the political spending of David and Charles Koch.[13] The article said that the Koch brothers are major funders of the U.S. Tea Party movement, giving money to organizations disabling mitigation of global warming legislation, and underwriting a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and groups mounting opposition campaigns against Obama Administration policies, ranging from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program.[2] The editorial cites Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity as saying, "The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."[2] Koch has responded by calling the article "an absolute slander and a highly inaccurate and dishonest attack on the two of us and our great company, Koch Industries".[14]

I have created a proposed text with full references at User:MBMadmirer/David H. Koch in my userspace that captures more of the recent stories, including the naming of the Koch brothers by a senior White House advisor. Here's that proposed text:

In the late summer and early fall of 2010, Koch's contribution to free-market think tanks and other advocacy organizations came under increased scrutiny. A number of pieces highlighted Koch support for the tea parties, Republican candidates, California Proposition 23 (2010), and alleged that Koch's activities were "covert." In July 2010, New York Magazine profiled him.[3] In August 2010, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker wrote an article about the political spending of David and Charles Koch.[13]. They were also named several times in The New York Times in an editorial[14] and pieces by columnists Paul Krugman and Frank Rich[15]. White House political advisor David Axelrod also wrote a piece in the The Washington Post, calling them "campaigners we can't see."[16] Koch told Elaine Lafferty the articles were "hateful" and "plain wrong",[17] and Investors Business Daily called it a "war on Koch Industries".[18]

Does anyone have suggestions about either this paragraph and/or the reorganization with a Controversy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBMadmirer (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Any comments? Would really appreciate some thoughts on either proposal. Thanks! MBMadmirer (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think my opinions are more or less what I expressed at talk:Charles G. Koch#Obvious BLP problem with 'pattern of lawbreaking", but less strenuously because your proposed texts arent just a vehicle for someone's opinion. Still, editorials are just opinions, and I generally disagree with adding third party opinions to biographies, that includes linking to third party editorials and saying, person x wrote about the subject. What difference does it make what Paul Krugman or Frank Rich think? Neither of them are in any way authorities on the the Koch's, yet we are including them because....? it appears in print somewhere? Bonewah (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I side with Bonewah on this issue; there's criticism in notable publications, but does that make it notable criticism? Not necessarily. The criticism is in columns, not articles, which are not reliable sources for controversial statements about living people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are very good points. Would you delete just that sentence? I think that keeping the stuff from David Axelrod is important, as a White House staffer speaking is notable. Here is another proposed text with a reference to a Los Angeles Times news piece about the contributions to a ballot initiative out there that attracted the New York Times editorial and without references to the Krugman and Rich columns:

In the late summer and early fall of 2010, Koch's contribution to free-market think tanks and other advocacy organizations came under increased scrutiny. A number of pieces highlighted Koch support for the tea parties, Republican candidates, California Proposition 23 (2010), and alleged that Koch's activities were "covert." In July 2010, New York Magazine profiled him.[3] In August 2010, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker wrote an article about the political spending of David and Charles Koch.[13]. In September, a Koch Industries subsidiary was one of several oil refiners to contribute to the campaign against California Proposition 23.[14][15] White House political advisor David Axelrod wrote a piece in the The Washington Post, calling them "campaigners we can't see."[16] Koch told Elaine Lafferty the articles were "hateful" and "plain wrong",[17] and Investors Business Daily called it a "war on Koch Industries".[18]

Again, I really appreciate the comments. MBMadmirer (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Any additional thoughts on this? I tried to address the concerns above.MBMadmirer (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I like that. You could wlink California Proposition 23 (2010), and it is "Investor's Business Daily" with an apostrophe, but the text itself looks fair and suitably descriptive. Good effort. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! Updated. Also, what do you think of the idea of moving this paragraph to a new Controversy section? It seems to me like the first paragraph really belongs as a subsection of the philanthropy section, while this one is really about current scrutiny... Admittedly, most of it is associated with the contributions described in this section, so it is less clear cut than it could be. MBMadmirer (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorials != RS

The claim "So far David and his brother have given about $100 million to various Tea Party organizations" is sourced back to an editorial in the Village voice White America Has Lost Its Mind. Aside from the fact that this article is utterly retarded, editorials are not reliable sources and, as such, I removed it. Please find a better source before putting those claims back in. Bonewah (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not labeled an editorial in any way, and the Village Voice is a reliable source. It appears in 2900 Wikipedia articles. According to Wikipedia's own article on it, "The Village Voice is a free weekly newspaper in New York City, United States featuring investigative articles, analysis of current affairs and culture, arts reviews and events listings for New York City." Abductive (reasoning) 23:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? You really are going to argue that because it isnt *labeled* an editorial, an article that claims to know what is going on the the minds of every white person in the whole country is actual journalism? Come on now, if this $100 million claim is a fact it should be no problem finding a better source than this one. Bonewah (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that editorials are never reliable sources of information. (Unless you can show me that policy. I also struck the title of this section as I doubt it is true.) I have used op-eds as fact before. For example, I have used op-eds that quote someone's publication as a source for what that person wrote. Also, I don't think that by including satire and opinion a journalist makes an article an op-ed thus "unreliable". Of course, please point me to a relevant policy, guideline, or essay if I am wrong. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Contentious claims (like White Americans being deluded) about living people requires extrememly solid sources. It is clear that the source being given is not solid for statements of fact. Indeed, I think that listing the other claims in the article make this abundantly clear. Collect (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC)The closest you are going to come is from wp:rs "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." Now I think that sentence is written poorly, the first part seems clear enough, op-ed are only a reliable source for the author's opinion, but the second part seems to hedge that, saying that sometimes op-eds are reliable. Sometimes, when? But taken in conjunction with the basis of RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." and especially concerning wp:blps: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." the meaning becomes more clear. Editorials may be reliable, but generally they are not, and definatly not in the case of BLPs. Thats my take on thing, anyway. More to the point, if this $100 million claim is a fact, it should not be difficult to find a better source that confirms it, and I think we are not doing our job as editors if we dont insist on a higher quality source, as BLP says we should. Bonewah (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your logic but I think you draw too sharp of a conclusion that op-eds should never be used on a BLP. This appears to be something you disagree with Wikipedia on. Consider the example I already gave. And I tend to agree, if the $100 million claim is a fact, it should not be difficult to find another source. However, I still don't see why opinion and satire from the Village Voice makes it unreliable. Thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see how Op-Eds can be used, per WP:BLP. Can you explain how it would not possibly be in violation if the matter is controversial? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Because a reputable publication printed it, and it's not an op-ed. Abductive (reasoning) 09:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It may not be "op-ed", but it's clearly not news. I'd classify it as an opinion column. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is my point; the classification as an opinion column is in Wikipedia editors' minds, not by the VV. There is no evidence that the author was speaking allegorically when he made the $100 million claim. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

<-There is also no evidence that the article was fact checked, which is what really matters. There is lots of evidence that this article is an editorial, such as the numerous, sweeping generalizations that could never be confirmed as fact (such as the afore mentioned "white people are all crazy" line and many others). Look if you really want to, we can take this to wp:RSN, but I really dont see the point, per below, the Jane Mayer article is a significantly better source that we can use, if we can work out what number is verifiable and how to word the article. What do you really hope to accomplish by including this source? Bonewah (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions cited as fact

At this point, the "$100 million" claim is ascribed only to a clear opinion piece -- which says that white america is delusional etc. It should be ascribed clearly to the author as opinion, and his opther colorful opinions should be shown. Collect (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very clearly opinion, but I see no reason why his opinion is important to the subject of the article. If you look at other highly rated biographies, such as Barack Obama (a featured article) you will find no third party opinions of the subject. The reason for this is obvious, knowing the opinion of some guy somewhere does nothing to enhance ones understanding of either Obama, or Koch. This is not to mention the fact that which opinions to include and which one to exclude is an inherent neutrality problem. Any time you seek to add anything to an article you have to ask yourself, is this relevant to understanding the subject, and, in the case of third party opinions, the answer is almost always no. What makes this guy's opinion relevant? The fact that it appears in print somewhere? So what? The mere fact that it is published does not make it relevant to either wikipedia or this biography. Bonewah (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is ascribed clearly in the ref, and although it is obvious the author has an axe to grind, he can still be sued for libel for presenting as fact things which are not true. The author clearly states that Koch has given $100 million to Tea Partiers. Is he wrong? Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

US libel law pretty much prevents suits by "public figures" so the claim that the author can be sued is disingenuous. Absent a genuine fact-checked source, the claim can only be listed as opinion. Collect (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I dont know, but it doesnt matter. To be a reliable source a source must have a reputation of fact checking and accuracy. Editorials do not have that system fact checking in place, they are merely the opinion of the author. You need only look at the first sentence of Mr. Thrasher's tirade to see that there is no fact checking going on here "About 12:01 on the afternoon of January 20, 2009, the white American mind began to unravel." This is clearly not journalism, it is the (racist) opinion of one person. Bonewah (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What proof do you have that the article was not fact-checked by the editors of The Village Voice and that author is incorrect in the claim of the monetary amount? Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Village Voice does not fact check opinion articles. Which is a fact. Unless, of course, you are willing to claim "the white American mind began to unravel" is a fact? Collect (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So, your word is proof? Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"About 12:01 on the afternoon of January 20, 2009, the white American mind began to unravel." Fact-checking? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think fact-checkers are allowed to skip metaphors - not part of their job. :) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

VV may be using The New Yorker article as its source.

This reached a new level in the Aug. 30 issue, with Jane Mayer's ambitious, close-to-interminable piece on David and Charles Koch. The pair have a family fortune of about $35-billion, made through Koch Industries, which deals in oil and other commodities. Mayer believes they have spent perhaps $100-million to influence opinion by creating the Cato Institute, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and many other organizations. She also blames them for the rise of the Tea Party movement.
- The New Yorker's $35-billion bogeymen Robert Fulford. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Sep 4, 2010. pg. A.21

Maybe it'd be simpler to cite The New Yorker directly. Will Beback talk 01:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have my reservations about the Jane Mayer article, but Id say it does qualify as a reliable source, in this context anyway and depending on the wording we choose. Bonewah (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So the $100 million dollar is correct, if one includes all past spending? Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that the 100m is. Greenpeace issued a report earlier this year that only found about $50m. And it came from 4 different sources: Charles G. Koch, David H. Koch, Koch Family Foundations, and Koch Industries. In the Mayer piece, the caption to the image has the clearest quote: "David H. Koch in 1996. He and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes." The only other place in the story that could get close to this is: "After the 1980 election, Charles and David Koch receded from the public arena. But they poured more than a hundred million dollars into dozens of seemingly independent organizations." It is not clear what the scope of that "hundred million" is. MBMadmirer (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the New Yorker say $45 million to one foundation? Abductive (reasoning) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. I see two places that are similar. One quote:

Only the Kochs know precisely how much they have spent on politics. Public tax records show that between 1998 and 2008 the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation spent more than forty-eight million dollars. The Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, which is controlled by Charles Koch and his wife, along with two company employees and an accountant, spent more than twenty-eight million. The David H. Koch Charitable Foundation spent more than a hundred and twenty million.

This quote doesn't distinguish between political/advocacy giving and other philanthropy. Then there's this one that talks about AFP spending $45m, but doesn't attribute the money to any of the Koch brothers in particular:

Americans for Prosperity, meanwhile, has announced that it will spend an additional forty-five million dollars before the midterm elections, in November. Although the group is legally prohibited from directly endorsing candidates, it nonetheless plans to target some fifty House races and half a dozen Senate races, staging rallies, organizing door-to-door canvassing, and running ads aimed at “educating voters about where candidates stand.”

I don't see anything that is obviously $100m on politics other than the ones I mentioned above. MBMadmirer (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source for the $100 million figure: "You might not know their names, but brothers Charles and David Koch have quietly given more than $100 million to right-wing causes, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think-tanks and political groups." Given at the beginning of a Fresh Air interview. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Koch, Dutch-American?

Koch is a Jewish last name. I think it should say "Jewish-American".

And don't come and tell me that Judaism is only a religion. He's jewish, in a religuos and ethnic way. 198.22.236.230 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

that would need to be verified instead by published reliable sources. wikipedia rules say we can't just use our own logic and post whatever we think is right. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have known non-Jewish Kochs -- assigning religion on the basis of a name is not proper per WP RS rules. Collect (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. My understanding is that Koch is Catholic, but a. his religious affiliation is a non-issue; and b. whatever it is, if it's to be mentioned at all, should definitely be reliably sourced. "Truthiness" is not Wikipedia-ish. (Irony intended.) Arjuna (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dutch Kochs abound, and there is now an Austrian Cardinal Koch to boot. Collect (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What many people take as Jewish is merely Germanic. Dylan Flaherty 16:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Platform

BLPs on candidates do not generally include party platforms. First of all - unless we have RS on it, platforms do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the subject. Second, abbreviated versions laying out claims in broad strokes may well misrepresent the actual opinions of the subject (thus any GOP candidate could have every controversial topic of the GOP platform inserted into their BLP willy-nilly). Third, articles on campaigns and parties can certainly have platforms mentioned - in detail, and including all nuances therein. As a different example - should the article on the current Pope stress all the official dogma of a Church? Should a Southern Baptist minister have all the tenets of the SBC ascribed to him personally? Sorry - if one has a source having Koch make a specific statement on an issue, that is fine. The "platform" (especially reduced to a list of any sort) though is improper in this BLP. Collect (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If a potential incoming pope was known to have a platform on reforming the Church, I would sure as hell hope their biography included that platform. As I suspected your argument is not based in policy or on a guideline. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In which case, we need an RS on the platform as a minimum. And it belongs in the article on the party. Collect (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The New York Magazine and the New Yorker articles are WP:RS. I agree that it belongs at the party. I also think it belongs here. Here's another who thought it was fine here. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no basis for the claims being RS as to the party platform. We need actual sources regarding the platform, not what Mayer asserts. Simple. Kindly ask at RSN and see if Mayer is a proper source for the platform contents, and BLPN if the platform belongs in Koch's BLP. Collect (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another another reference that raises issues about the framing of this. Apparently in 1979 National Review raised issues about the left-wing challenges of Koch to the "freedom movement". This suggests to me that (a) these could be important arguments for David Koch's biography, but also that (b) that Mayer's interpretation could be wrong... MBMadmirer (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

MB, you just undermined Collect's argument. The source you linked to states that Mayer referenced the party platform, then goes on to say that the Clark/Koch was all over the place. Dylan Flaherty 16:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that a complete perspective is important. The fact that some people on the right view the Kochs as somewhat scary and dangerous is interesting. Two of the organizations that David Koch is associated with -- the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine -- are considered to be part of the libertarian left by many conservatives. Maybe there should be a controversy section with one subsection called "Koch called too far right" and "Koch called too far left". And throw in that David Koch and his wife gave $75k to Andrew Cuomo and you have a complicated story. Ultimately, my position is that Wikipedia should allow for the full story about the guy rather than the polemic form presented by people like Mayer. MBMadmirer (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What should happen is that Wikipedia articles should follow what all the reliable secondary sources say. For example, if the Clark-Koch campaign was noted as having a typical Libertarian platform, then a link to the Libertarian party article would suffice. If parts of the 1980 platform attracted special interest, then mentioning those is not problematic, it is required. There isn't any reason to worry about why the sources care or don't about the platform or parts of the platform. Abductive (reasoning) 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

MB, I'm fine with the article being well-sourced and showing conflicting points of view. It's entirely possible for someone to be seen as both too left and too right, which just shows that they're either using something other than a left/right basis for their decisions or they're badly misunderstood. Either way, we should report it.

~~I knew the Koch's were behind Cato, but while I recognize Reason as being Libertarian, I hadn't realized the Koch's were associated with it. Is it something they founded and funded or just supported?~~ Dylan Flaherty 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't made the connection between the Reason Foundation and Reason Magazine. Now I feel dumb. However, anyone who considers it to be part of the left must be coming from a perspective somewhat to the right of Hitler. :-) Dylan Flaherty 20:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't think that there has been a more articulate voice for civil liberties, drug legalization, and in opposition to overcriminalization than Reason. And in all of those cases, there's a clear record of Koch supporting those. I am being a little provocative here, but to make a point. In addition to funding a lot of free-market causes, we are also talking about one of the most prolific funders of the intellectual framework behind the drug legalization movement in America. When someone advocates, as Koch did in the 1980 platform, for ending the CIA and FBI, perhaps that should be in that context... Make sense? MBMadmirer (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for context, but I still don't accept the suggestion that this is in any way leftist. This is particularly notable in your choice of "civil liberties" over "civil rights". Dylan Flaherty 02:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please don't hear me wrong. I think it would be ridiculous to really claim he's on the left. The point here is merely that the facts in Wikipedia shouldn't be trapped by a narrative that is being driven by, mostly, opinion media. MBMadmirer (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

There are still no reliable sources which link David to the Tea Party movement. There are a lot of sources which mention people claiming there is a connection, but no proof or (reliable) claims of proof have been presented. The so-called connection shouldn't be in the lede; and it shouldn't be in the body without explanation. It isn't presently in the body, so certainly shouldn't be present in the lede. Even the "Tea Party's wallet" article doesn't claim a potential connection until the 6th page, and it remains potential. His denial of a connection is on the 1st page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir: surely you jest. There are ample reliable sources definitively linking Koch with funding to the Tea Party, via third party groups. The NY magazine article, the New Yorker article, and the Rich piece are just a few examples off the top of my head. Some of these and other sources have also documented Koch's tactic of "stealth support", which belies his denial that he has supported the TP movement via Armey's FreedomWorks. It's late here, and I've already reverted twice in 27 hours, so I'm going to let this pass for the moment but will return. Koch's support for the TP is documented and stating this in the lede is perfectly appropriate and easily cited with RS. Someone else should revert. If not, I will get back to it tomorrow. Arjuna (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is helpful to be clear on this. There are sources that show that Koch gives money to Americans for Prosperity, for example. Americans for Prosperity supports Tea Parties. However, Americans for Prosperity has existed in one form or another since 1984. And Koch has specifically said that Koch does not specifically fund tea party groups and has not earmarked any funds to organizations that they had existing relationships to for tea party activities. They have since updated their statement to say that they have received one request for funds from a specifically tea party organization and denied it. Also, I think that Frank Rich does not qualify as [[WP:RS} for things like this. So it would be correct and clear to say that Koch money funds groups that support tea parties. I don't believe that there is any credible dispute on that. However, any discussion of this should point to Koch's very specific denial on this. MBMadmirer (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer? Arthur Rubin states Libertarian Party (United States) candidate ... COI ... Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin? 99.88.230.248 (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Kate Zernike's book and articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.206 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In Kate Zernicke's New York Times 20.October.2010 article "Secretive Republican Donors Planning Ahead" there is a copy of the Palm Springs conference invite on Koch Industries Letterhead dated "September 24, 2010" from Charles G. Koch. Appears public denials and private actions by the Koch family are not the same. 99.29.184.230 (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering at absurd levels. Americans for Prosperity was founded in part by David Koch, who is currently the chairman of the board of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. AFP has been a key organizer of many tea party events. Trying to maintain that there is a distinction between them is simply untenable. "Cohlmia confirmed Koch's role backing AFP. Asking how that squares with the statement that Koch not provide funding "specifically to support the tea parties," Cohlmia said "the statement stands." Wikipedia is not a platform for furthering unsupported corporate statements or cloaking documented funding of political activities. The funding relationship between Koch and tea party activities is documented with ample reliable sources, so tell me which one you want me to use. Arjuna (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The funding relationship (none) between Koch and the TPm is quite well established, unless you want to assert that Koch controls (not controlled, founded, or funds) AFP. That would require a reliable source, and no such source has yet been found. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

Kate's article doesn't even assert that connection; it implies it, and that implication is probably not even an WP:RS, under the circumstances. I don't know about the book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

AFP and AFPF cannot be the same organization, or AFPF would lose its 501(c)(3) status. And the claim that AFP has been a "key organizer" of "many tea party events" is not established, nor is it adequate for the claim made here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing short of laughable. The link is well-documented with RSs, and your wikilawyering assertion that there isn't is singularly unhelpful to the goal of improving the article to reflect mainstream consensus about the role of David Koch in an important political movement. Maybe you can clarify this for me. The link is obvious, yet Koch, and others - including perhaps some editors here - are intent on cloaking this relationship. Why? Is support for the TP something to be ashamed of? Just curious. Arjuna (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are no accusations of doing anything illegal. Koch spoke at Tea Party event,and praised them for their good work. Is there anything wrong with funding, training and otherwise supporting Tea Partiers? Abductive (reasoning) 02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The claim there is that (some) TP members spoke at an AFP event at which Koch also spoke. If you have information that anything else happened, please present it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if the link were documented with reliable sources, per WP:LEDE, it shouldn't be in the lede unless it appears in the body. It does not appear in the body. Please it in to the body with sufficient specificity that one can determine what really is claimed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: lede, I assume you're referring to the "Koch spoke to the TP event" claim. If you're referring to the TP link "allegation" generally, then that already is in the body of the article, as it darn well should be as a widely reported fact, and is therefore citable in the lede. Arjuna (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The funding relationship (none) between Koch and the TPm is quite well established...

Funny that Arjuna has brought sources to back his claims and you have not. — goethean ॐ 04:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he hasn't brought sources. More to the point, the only reference to the TP in the body is David denying a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that we had Koch's denial of a connection before any claims of a connection confused me. There still aren't credible sources of an actual link between Koch and the TP, but there are certainly adequate sources for claims of linkage. I've made a slight change to the lede, and reordered the "Advocacy" paragraph, to put things in the proper perspective. As I (and 3 or 4 other editors have noted); A funds B and B funds C does not necessarily mean that there is any credible connection between A and C. However, we do note that there are claims of a connection, so it's true that Koch has been linked to the TP, regardless of whether there is any evidence of a linkage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be absolutely appropriate to say that there are claims of connections based on Koch being the chair of AFPF, which has supported tea party organizations. Any stronger statement would run into problems. Amy Gardner's piece in the Washington Post showed that 10x more tea party groups are affiliated with the tea party patriots than are affiliated with AFP. And FreedomWorks is approximately the same size. Any claim that Koch funds the tea party has to grapple with the fact that there is only a documented link to less than 5% of tea party groups. Based on that data, it seems ridiculous to make very strong claims about Koch being behind the tea party. It also suggests that there is stronger reality to the Koch denial than there is to asserts that Koch is behind it all. MBMadmirer (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy in "Advocacy" section

"A number of pieces highlighted Koch support for the tea parties, Republican candidate...." still isn't correct, although it's no longer false. "Highlighted" has no credible meaning, but, if it implies that the claims of support are accurate, it needs to go. All Dylan has produced is a YouTube video. "Alleged" may not be quite correct, but "claimed" may be best, in spite of WP:WTA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote "highlighted" originally to not necessarily endorse the point of view, but as part of an attempt to contextualize everything that had been happening. There were massive WP:UNDUE problems with the previous version. I like claim a lot because there are basically two sides arguing incomplete positions to establish political narratives. That is why I think it is also important to include the Koch rebuttals in this (but I was fought on this). MBMadmirer (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the Koch rebuttals about the TPm is required if there is any credible mention of the TPm in the advocacy section, other than people claim there is a connection between Koch and the TPm. I don't think there is. The statements that AFP and/or AFPF support the TPm should not be in this article, as being completely irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with that. I had Koch's rebuttals in the draft that I created, but it was pulled out by someone (don't remember who right now). I was not getting any support for this position that seems completely, 100% correct and common sense. I also believe that Koch's answer to the shadowy and secret allegation should be there too. MBMadmirer (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Rubin has been edit-warring to keep some biased, inaccurate text in the article. This includes the statement:

Some writers said Koch supported the "tea parties" and Republican candidates

This is weaseling, as it's not merely "some writers". Rather, we know for a fact that Koch has given millions to Republican candidates and that organizations he founded and funded, notably AFP/FW, have given direct support to the Tea Party movement. This is not controversial, this is not unsupported, it is a simple fact. Rubin, unfortunately, would prefer wording that conceals this fact. Worse, it appears to be part of a pattern of factual errors on his part with regard to the movement. At this point, I am considering requesting a topic ban, even though he is an administrator. Dylan Flaherty 16:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's clear he supported Republican candidates. It's not at all clear he supports or supported the TPm. And, your claim that his support of AFP/FW and their support of Tea Party organizations means that he supports the TPm is not suitable for an article about a living person, even if his political opponents so "report". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And I was restoring Collect's edit, with some modification toward your preferred version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rm PA from section title here. BTW Dylan, what you know has no part in how articles are edited on WP. Collect (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is still weaseling, as it now says that "writers" -- as opposed to political analysts, journalists and politicans -- merely "claim" that Koch supported these two groups. It's not a claim, it's a verified fact! You just admitted that there is no doubt about the GOP, as it's a matter of public record. You've repeatedly argued -- entirely unconvincingly -- that Koch only supports the TPM through a thin layer of organizations he founded and funded so it doesn't count. This is your own original research and it has been rejected over and over and over again. It is being rejected right this moment, on the basis of reliable sources disagreeing with you. Dylan Flaherty 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Read WP policies and guidelines on wording. That you "know" something is a fact, does not make it one. Our task is to represent what the sources say, and to ascribe opinions as opinions. Collect (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is not at all true that David Koch supports FreedomWorks. That is a clear misrepresentation. AFP and FW are two different organizations that split. Koch went one direction and Armey went the other. The reason that I drafted the Advocacy section the way I did was to say that some people claim Koch is behind the tea parties based on his support for AFP, HOWEVER, AFP has an older history, as do many of the other organizations. It is not that tea party support is false, it is that it is terribly incomplete and often deliberately incomplete. Wikipedia needs to deal with all the facts. MBMadmirer (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he founded it. I don't know what you're talking about. Dylan Flaherty 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that you don't know what you are talking about. He founded CSE and CSE Foundation in 1984. In 2004, CSE Foundation became AFP Foundation and David continued as chair of that. CSE changed its name to Freedom Works and is run by Armey. Both Koch and Armey have said on the record that Koch does not give money to FreedomWorks. And several reporters have written that the groups don't have a good relationship. To say that David Koch supports FreedomWorks is simply a clear misrepresentation of the facts, based in either ignorance or an intent to mislead. MBMadmirer (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What's pretty clear is that you're on the border of civility and need to pull way, way back before you get swatted by an admin. Dylan Flaherty 14:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone on that. But I do believe that it is very clear that there is no current relationship between FW and any of the Koch brothers. The statement that there is is demonstrably false. And I do not know what you want to insist on that. The facts on this is remarkably simple: David Koch is the chairman of a group founded in 1984 (CSEF) and then reformed in 2004 (AFPF) that supports some tea party groups and events. It is clearly somewhat strange to say that a group founded in 1984 is a "tea party group", but it is perfectly documented that it supports some tea party groups. At an AFPF event that Koch had been the keynote speaker for 3-4 years, he praised AFP/AFPF activists, and that has been construed as direct support of a tea party event. I would be curious which of those facts you dispute or what facts you think need to be added. MBMadmirer (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that Koch has been less than entirely candid about these matters. For example, his company's Director of Communications wrote:

"[...] Koch companies, the Koch foundations, Charles Koch and David Koch have no ties to and have never given money to FreedomWorks. In addition, no funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties."

Note how it claims Koch has no ties whatsoever, when in fact he is the founder. Likewise, we know that the AFP is directly involved in the Tea Party movement, including hosting a site called www.nctaxdayteaparty.com that tells readers to "contact Americans for Prosperity-NC with questions about throwing a Tea Party in your town! We are here to help you have a great success!"

I'm sure that the statement made by Koch's representative isn't 100% false; parsed carefully, some parts are literally true but intentionally misleading. The same is the case for your statement about Koch not being responsible for FW. All of these add up to a consistent pattern of Koch denialism. Dylan Flaherty 20:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So what information are you citing for Koch is "responsible for FW"? That seems like WP:SYNTHESIS. And "responsible" is certainly not a neutral word in describing the relationship. The article currently outlines the history. David Koch founded CSE Foundation and was chairman of that. CSE Foundation was renamed AFP Foundation and AFP was created after the separation. CSE, which Koch was not on the board of, became FreedomWorks after CSEF was split off and renamed. All of these facts are currently in the article. What changes to the article would you want to make and what are the citations for those changes? MBMadmirer (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, the topic is whether Koch has supported the Tea Party movement. I believe that issue is settled in favor, so let's move on. Dylan Flaherty 21:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

...Koch has been less than entirely candid about these matters

That's understating the case wildly. It would be more accurate to say that Koch has been aggressively covering up his funding using every means of deception available to him, likely including the use of Wikipedia accounts. — goethean ॐ 21:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing in the least, I would like you remind you that we must assume good faith. In the end, it doesn't matter whether MBMadmirer is actually David Koch; we just have to apply the same high standards across the board. If we do that, then all sources of bias, whether incidental or partisan, will be under the same pressure to "put up or shut up". Dylan Flaherty 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So you are satisfied with the text that is currently in the article? I don't deny that there's a connection. Why are we having a debate that doesn't have to do with actual changes to the text? MBMadmirer (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. It's an ongoing issue, so I'll be making incremental changes to tune it. Dylan Flaherty 23:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I support this approach. Abductive (reasoning) 23:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would really love to have this discussion in the context of concrete changes. I suspect that you and I are in reasonably similar places on the text itself, once we get there. We may have different views of the actors, the ideas, etc., but the point of wikipedia has a way of working that out when you have the rules of wikipedia and concrete things to work with. MBMadmirer (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's use WP:BRD. Dylan Flaherty 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, none of the reliable sources (so far) used support the assertion that Koch supported the TPm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Rubin, you keep saying this, but it's not actually true. Please stop. Dylan Flaherty 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We can not know material which is not present in reliable sources. Especially in any BLP. Collect (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute this, but it's not relevant. Rubin has had reliable sources presented to him, and has simply dismissed them. I can't explain it, but that's his reaction. Dylan Flaherty 17:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been engaged with other stuff, and haven't had time to digest every detail, but on the larger issue of bias, I agree with Dylan Flaherty and goethean that the position of some editors to whitewash Mr. Koch's support of the TP - financial, moral, or otherwise - is untenable. Most of the recent critiques (Meyer et al) highlight Koch's standard M.O. which is to obfuscate his involvement in many of the projects he supports. Indeed, it is perfectly appropriate and even incumbent among good editors to mention this "Kochtopus" aspect of the critique to which he is now subject. In haste, Arjuna (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Arjuna, please be more careful about avoiding misleading edit comments. If you mark a change as purely grammatical, it's hardly fair to introduce bias at the same time. Dylan Flaherty 21:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the broader point here Arjuna. It is clear that Koch is tied to the tea parties, but it is more subtle than a straightforward "Tea parties are stooges of the Kochs". The advocacy section when I updated it had some recency issues and WP:UNDUE issues, but none of that is hidden. I do think that David Koch's response is notable though and should be included here. MBMadmirer (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, that edit was purely grammatical. You were reverting other edits, entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I fixed it now. Dylan Flaherty 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think that this story at the Wall Street Journal has the most up-to-date statement from the Kochs and illustrates the needle that they are trying to thread, successfully or not. The argument of whether the Kochs are supporting the tea party is a really perspectival thing. If you see AFP as a long-standing group with a separate mission, then no. And as people who have supported AFPF for 26 years, they clearly think that. If you see AFP as a tea party group, then clearly yes. Those are different. MBMadmirer (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

DF, I wasn't the one who put in "claimed". I added "have" to "claimed" to indicate that the assertion is currently valid and not something that is purely past tense. So chill, man - I'm with you on trying to find language that appropriately reflects the conclusions of the Koch critiques. MBMAdmirer, I appreciate your comment. I would not suggest that the Kochs "created" the TP movement, and so agree with you that the reality is more subtle (some would say "insidious", but not in the article!). So point is I'm glad to know that we're working in good faith on this. How can we find a way to reinstate mention of the "Kochtopus" claim (i.e. shorthand for the assertion that Koch has an M.O. geared to covering his tracks) in a way that is fair and BLP-compliant? Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Arjuna, I stand corrected, but I think you didn't go quite far enough in balancing the article, so I went a little bit further. I'm neutral about whether the term "Kochtopus" makes it into the article; I'm not sure whether it adds enough to make up for the need to balance it. If it were included, it would need to be attributed explicitly as the opinion of a reliable (if hardly neutral) source. Dylan Flaherty 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick note. "Kochtopus", as I'm using it above, refers to the concept, not necessarily the word per se. Obviously it needs to be RS-ed. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Beast story I note above has David's response saying, basically, that they aren't very well hidden if they are trying to be. As Nick Gillespie, the editor of Reason Magazine, David is on the masthead of the magazine, has run for Vice President, is on the board of AFPF (and keynotes their annual conference). That's not very well hidden. Charles hasn't been as forward facing, but he has been involved too. I would also note that the "Kochtopus" label is not viewed entirely as negatively. I would point to this (non-WP:RS) blog post at antiwar.com. An interesting historical take from Reason is here that notes that National Review tried to write Koch out of the "Freedom Movement" in 1979. (also probably not WP:RS) The upshot of all this is that they have a perspective that should at least be given a fair shot with quotes, etc. All the appropriate WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP context should be added. But I don't think it is right to completely write out their voice completely. MBMadmirer (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate change

Rubin recently changed part of the article to read:

"A number of writers assert Koch supports the Tea Party movement and Republican candidates.."

We know for a fact that Koch has donated directly and indirectly to Republican candidates, and we have him on video lauding his operatives for their success in organizing Tea Party protests. Calling a statement of fact an "assertion" is simply dishonest. I urge Rubin to revert his erroneous change. Dylan Flaherty 03:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Get an RS for the "fact" which you assert. "Knowing for a fact" is not valid for WP edits, we need verifiable reliable sources which make the precise claim being made. Collect (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's one from the New York Times, "Mr. Romney has already lined up an array of prominent supporters, including a billionaire, David Koch, who has donated heavily to conservative causes over the years." David also gave $1m to the Republican Governors Association this year. There's a lot of interpretation in dispute here, but the facts on the Republican support are really clear. MBMadmirer (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The claims are about the TPm. "Republicans" can be sourced to primary and secondary sources (although probably not the ones presented at present.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, sorry. AFP and AFPF are clearly supported and David Koch is on the board of AFPF. The WSJ piece I linked to above had a quote by Richard H. Fink that indicated support for (in principle) the tea parties, but an indication that they do not consider AFP and AFPF "tea party groups". Obviously other people do. I think that it is clearly true to say that they support tea party groups. The ellision is more complicated though. MBMadmirer (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We have plenty of reliable sources that highlight the AFP's role in organizing TPM events, so we don't need to make the call ourselves. Dylan Flaherty 17:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. AFPs involvement in tea parties is really clear. That's why I said "clearly true to say that they support tea party groups". That's not what we are debating on the David Koch page. What we are debating is: (a) does David support the tea parties "in spirit" (yes, WSJ), (b) does David support them financially (he supports AFP which supports them), (c) is that why he supports AFP? (clearly not the only reason as he has been involved with it for 5 years (the video you mention) or 25 years, depending on how you process CSE), (d and the key operative question) should we prioritize the AFP support (and the implicit tea party support) or the tea party support? (It seems to me AFP then tea party) MBMadmirer (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As interesting as it is to discuss these matters, while we're busy talking, Rubin is busy editing. Once again, he changed the article without discussion and in contradiction to what our sources say. Dylan Flaherty 20:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is pointless

"In August 2010, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker wrote on the political spending of David and Charles Koch." It doesn't tell the reader anything about who this person is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's probably because we don't know anything about her. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This "her": Jane Mayer? 99.190.88.135 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure is. I'll make sure she's hyperlinked. Dylan Flaherty 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting claims not in evidence?

It seems strange to me to include the sentence "The Washington Post has reported that both Koch and FreedomWorks deny that Koch has ever provided funding to FreedomWorks since its creation" in this article. The sentence seems to come from nowhere. One might expect a preceding sentence such as "[Known to be highly credible] journalists reported [in such-and-such a publication] on [such-and-such a date] that David Koch funds FreedomWorks". Then, one might expect to see a next sentence such as "The Washington Post has reported that both Koch and FreedomWorks deny that Koch has ever provided funding to FreedomWorks since its creation". But in the absence of a lead-in sentence that would make sense of why "The Washington Post has reported that both Koch and FreedomWorks deny that Koch has ever provided funding to FreedomWorks since its creation" is here at all, I wonder whether the suggested but non-existent lead-in sentence doesn't exist because of some reason. Perhaps it is not the case that the suggestion was ever made by a known-to-be-highly credible journalist? If that's the case, then the current sentence is smuggling in an implication that is POV, by implying that some very credible source ever made the assertion in the first place. 208.127.237.17 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It should follow the implication that FW belongs in the article, rather than precede it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This one is my bad. Perhaps it should be on the previous paragraph that talks about the CSE/AFP/FW split? MBMadmirer (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the link: it turns out that you're not the only one who thinks it's a bit strange that Koch proactively denied an association that they weren't accused of. Dylan Flaherty 05:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they read the blogs which made the claim? Or [4] which links David Koch in an article about FW? [5] from the SEIU in 2009 making the explicit claim? Sorry - the release was not "proactive" even - it addressed rumour and innuendo which had been spread widely. Collect (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on donations/dollar amounts

Just my 2 cents, but I think that there's too much emphasis on donations and dollar amounts. I doubt if the average reader really cares too much about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I half-agree (is that 1 cent?). Yes, most people are here for a biography, not an audit, so it would be easy to overwhelm (read: bore) them with too many figures. On the other hand, hard numbers can be easier to source and are less affected by bias than summaries, and sometimes numbers tell a story better than words alone. In short, you do have a valid point and we need to be careful not to overdo the digits. If you have any specific areas where you'd recommend ditching the digits, I'm wide open. Dylan Flaherty 22:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything not mentioned by an independent secondary source should go. Abductive (reasoning) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Koch: companies or industries?

According to this, the press release was from KI, not KC. Dylan Flaherty 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also see: http://www.kochind.com/newsroom/news_releases_details.aspx?id=904 The spokesperson for Koch Industries mentioned in the Washington Post article is identified here as Melissa Cohlmia. --S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard H. Fink's bio at the Mercatus Center may clarify. "Mr. Fink is an executive vice president and member of the board of directors of Koch Industries, Inc. He is also chairman and CEO of Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC; which provides legal and government and public affairs services to Koch Industries, Inc. and its affiliates." MBMadmirer (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I missed that. I was going to say that the error, together with other indicia of lack of editorial review, make the source unreliable. However, with that information, I think we should go forward using Koch Companies Public Sector. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My gut is that this isn't a big distinction. It looks to me like a big company just organized legal and media facing staff to be more coordinated. Sounds like something that McKinsey would recommend ... :) MBMadmirer (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Koch Companies Public Sector part of Koch Industries? Dylan Flaherty 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. When you google it, you get a bunch of job descriptions. Obviously, that isn't WP:RS or anything like that, but you get the sense that this isn't much. For example:

Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC, is a shared-services company that provides legal, government and public affairs services to affiliates of Koch Industries, Inc. around the world.

MBMadmirer (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I see no problem with "Koch spokesperson". Dylan Flaherty 19:17, 9 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) 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The above article was rewritten, but 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) 07:18, 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 Davids 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 David and his brother Charles' 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 David's 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) 06:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this on the talk page of the suggested page, but I wanted to restate here. There are several issues. First, this has inherent POV problems. It would be more neutral to have a page on the philanthropy of the Koch brothers that includes significant sections on the political giving, the advocacy giving, and the arts, science, and education giving. Just fetishizing the politics is inappropriate. When you put all their giving in context, there is a clear story. Secondly, there may only be one (vaguely) analogous page. There's a page about conspiracy theories about George Soros. That page contextualizes and debunks them. But even that isn't comparable. Third, the actual page that was created had massive POV issues. The person who created clearly created it as a hit job to coincide with a protest organized by liberal groups. So, in the end, I would support something that took all of the philanthropy as a whole if it was written in a genuinely good-faith, encyclopedic style, rather than as a supporting document to protests. MBMadmirer (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF failure and repetition of debunked errors aside (I wasn't aware of any protests when I created that article), you're ignoring the history of Koch Family Foundations, which had previously attempted to survey the various political and charitable activities, which was problematic because much of it isn't actually through the Foundations, even though it's all interlinked. So when people (recently) kept trying to remove the political stuff from that page, I created somewhere to put it. So far the only response of conservative editors is to want the survey of the Koch's political activities' deleted entirely. Comparing undisputed facts like Charles' co-founding Cato with George Soros conspiracy theories is a nice line in propaganda though - kudos (incidentally putting that together with your user page comments and and contributions makes it seem rather probable that you are acting as a PR agent for Koch Industries, via an external PR agency). Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

scott walker prank

Is there a way to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/scott-walker-buffalo-beast-phone-prank_n_827058.html?ref=fb&src=sp include this event? or is this just completely unrelated to him except by using his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.212.207 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As tempting as it is, that material should be confined to the Scott Walker (politician) and 2011 Wisconsin protests articles. Abductive (reasoning) 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Clear Bias in Political Advocacy Section

"A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, 'The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!'...Another former Koch adviser said, 'They’re smart. This right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves.'"[2]

This is a quote from someone who is clearly biased against this person, breaking the terms of a neutral article. No other article on an individual permits the trashing: "This right-wing, redneck stuff..[sic]". A defamation of character is clearly not allowed in the charter of Wikipedia. This content should be removed as it is biased and offensive; just as I would support the removal of any character smearing or name calling on the Obama or McCain pages. - 3-3-11 - GJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried, but consensus is that Mayer is reliable, regardless of quoting (or possibly creating) anonymous libelous rants. Do you want to try again at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That does not mean that this particular quote is acceptable. I also support the removal of the passage in question. Why is this one particular person's opinion relevant? Why should we allow such non-neutral wording in a BLP? I dont know. Bonewah (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when is "non-neutral wording", when it's a quote from a RS, a problem? Whitewashing isn't allowed. Doing that is editorializing POV editing. There is nothing remotely libelous about the word. It's just a pejorative. So what? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you should go read wp:NPOV again, i dont believe you understand what it means. Bonewah (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Anonymous opinions" as they are not ascribed to a specific person are a substantial problem for any WP:BLP. The value of such is essentially nil. This is not "whitewashing" - it is obeying WP:BLP. vide "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Collect (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

David Koch is recognized as a key supporter of the Tea Party movement

In 2009, before Koch denied involvement with the tea party, staffers of David Koch's organization Americans For Prosperity explained to Koch himself at his Defending the American Dream summit how they've been organizing the Tea Party movement. C-SPAN recording of the 2009 Defending the American Dream Summit, with David Koch and tea party organizers

Transcript:

DAVID KOCH: This is a phenomenal success in my judgment. Eight hundred thousand activists from nothing five years ago. This is a remarkable achievement. And we’re being effective in so many different ways. (1:20)

AFP CALIFORNIA: We helped organize huge tea parties all throughout the state. And on April 15, Tax Day, over 10,000 Californians joined us on the steps of the state capital and we held one of the largest tea parties in the country. . . (2:45)

AFP GEORGIA: … the largest Tax Day tea party in the nation on April 15 … (2:47)

AFP MARYLAND: … we organized dozens of tea parties … (2:53)

AFP MICHIGAN: … We have held the largest tea party in the state … (2:54)

AFP OKLAHOMA: … we’ve held 29 tea parties … (3:03)

AFP WISCONSIN: ... our AFP Tax Day tea party on April 15 ... (3:12)

This has been widely reported, in Grist, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, and the documentary (Astro)Turf Wars.

Americans For Prosperity explicitly promotes its organization of tea parties. (e.g. "Americans for Prosperity will be hosting the National Taxpayer Tea Party at the Capitol." and NJ Taxpayer Tea Party). Here, for example, is another news story: The state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the conservative anti-tax, smaller government group, is trying to get the North Carolina tea party movement organized.

It's certainly a fact that Koch claimed at one point that he had no connection to the Tea Party movement, but there's ample evidence against that claim, and no evidence to support it. While Koch is on record denying involvement in the Tea Party, he is also on record this year praising the Tea Party movement. Koch: "There are some extremists there, but the rank and file are just normal people like us. And I admire them. It’s probably the best grassroots uprising since 1776 in my opinion." Koch's statements about the Tea Party movement -- which are few and far between, and certainly without any sense that they should be considered statements of fact -- should by WP:NPOV not weighted equally with the documentary record in WP:RS about his support for the Tea Party movement.

Here are just a few more reliable sources that David Koch's Americans For Prosperity is a key organization in supporting the tea party movement: Tea Party: The Awakening; A New American Tea Party; Mad As Hell Sellout; Getting It Done; Common Nonsense ...

As the current revision stands, the article gives a misleading and biased view of Koch's interaction with the Tea Party movement, contrary to how reliable, external sources describe it. --The Cunctator (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said in another venue, of the first three of those sources I checked, 2 were totally unreliable, and 2 didn't support the statements you said they supported. (Yes, that's an overlap.) If you trim your assertions to those actually supported by reliable sources, you might achieve more credibility of your own. In your "widely reported" sentence, Grist, the WSJ blog, and the "documentary" are not reliable sources, and The Guardian and the WSJ blog do not support the statement as written.

However, the C-Span (if it really is C-Span) video, might be acceptable to note that Koch now approves of the TPm. The statement that he had never been to a TP meeting may still be correct; contrasting it to even a sourced statement that he supports the TP is synthesis.

I don't read Google book "references" without a statement of at least the title of the book and the page number. Unless you are a paid subscriber to Google, they eventually fail, and I'm not going to waste my access time on something which is most probably not what you say it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that your arguments seem to be limited to personal opinions about sources. It may be an interesting fact that you won't waste your access time following links on a Talk page, but that's hardly relevant to whether David Koch has provided significant and important support to the Tea Party movement, which is the topic under discussion. The idea that C-Span may not actually be C-Span is a quite remarkable epistomological stance. Please note the chronology: Koch publicly approved of the Tea Party movement before he denied knowledge of it. In many quarters, for those who believe in the arrow of time, that is known as a false claim. --The Cunctator (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He didn't "deny knowledge of it" — at least, no source has been provided for that. He denied meeting with TP groups and providing financial support. No false claim, and even it were a false claim, WP:SYNTHESIS requires the same reliable source note the connection, before it could be noted in a Wikipedia article.

As for grist.com and blogs, have you any evidence that they could be considered reliable under WP:RS? The documentary cannot be considered reliable, although it might provide evidence of relevance for facts sourced to reliable sources. I shouldn't have made it personal, but you have insisted on providing sources which cannot possibly be considered reliable now, and in the past, so I'm not going to trace bare URLs which might also link to unreliable sources. If you identify the sources with the information that should be in a {{cite}} template, I would be willing to check those which could possibly be reliable, to see whether they support the statements you're adding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This wiki-lawyering about sources is kind of silly. Here's a reliable source that refers to Americans For Prosperity as a top Tea Party organization, funded by David Koch: Amy Gardner, Karen Yourish and Laura Stanton (September 26, 2010). "The top national players in the tea party". Washington Post. --The Cunctator (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asking whether c-spanvideo.org is really C-SPAN; trademark protection probably makes it so, but you have heard of cybersquatters, haven't you? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

C'mon. It takes approximately zero time and effort to confirm that c-spanvideo.org is "really" C-SPAN. --The Cunctator (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole section epitomizes exactly the problem i have with the Koch == Tea Party editing. Its not that there isnt ample evidence that Koch supports the AFP, he does. And its not as though you cant reliably demonstrate that Koch approves of the Tea Party, as you have shown, he has plenty of kind words for them. My problem with this whole thing is the constant attempts to overstate Koch's importance to, and influence over the Tea Party that, in my opinion, runs afoul of at least wp:OR and probably a whole lot more. One need only look at the title of this section to see what I mean "David Koch is recognized as a key supporter of the Tea Party movement" not just supportive of, not a supporter of, no, hes a key supporter. And recognized by who? Ah yes, by people who really want to believe that the Tea Party is just an astroturf campaign by big oil. Bonewah (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Your claim is that people who say Koch is an influential supporter of the Tea Party meovement want to believe the Tea Party is a big oil astroturf campaign. I for one don't believe that about the Tea Party. I believe the Tea Party movement is the present instantiation of American conservative activism. Like all other national political activities, left and right, there are grassroots components and organizational, centralized elements. As Allen Lichtman describes in his magisterial book White Protestant Nation, the common threads of American political conservative power are Wall Street, oil, and white Protestants. Although many of the people who are interested in Koch's role are people who are opposed to his policy goals -- or those of grassroots Tea Party activists -- most of those who have written about Koch's role are primarily interested in elucidating the nature of political power. E.g. political reporters, historians, and the like. These are the people who try to discover who has influence within the White House, which lobbyists set the agenda in the Capitol, what think tanks are successfully introducing ideas into the American politic, which presidential candidates have the best chance to win. They have an anti-policy bias, to be sure, but it's not the bias that you impute. Furthermore, there are plenty of Tea Party activists who celebrate the role of Americans For Prosperity in facilitating, organizing, and supporting the grassroots activity. People on the left generally think the involvement of a libertarian oil billionaire in funding the Tea Party movement is a bad thing; people on the right generally think that's fine. Why shouldn't a fabulously successful businessman who shares the ideological goals of millions of conservatives support the movement? One man's AstroTurf is another man's grassroots. IMHO!

In Mad As Hell, political analysts Scott Rasmussen (a conservative) and Doug Schoen (a liberal) identify Koch as a key supporter of the Tea Party movement. They describe how a spokesman for Americans For Prosperity "was proud to identify the organization as 'party of the tea party--little 't,' little 'p.' Koch sits on the group's Board of Directors and helped fund a number of Tea Party causes. His group was identified as one of the key groups (along with FreedomWorks) behind the April 15, 2009 national Tea Party events." Rasmussen, Scott; Schoen, Douglas (2010). Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two Party System. Harper. p. 150. ISBN 9780061995231.

In Revolt!, conservatives Dick Morris and Eileen McGann identify both David and Charles Koch as key supporters of the Tea Party movement. "The real hero was the Tea Party movement, which engineered a grassroots rebellion against Obama's policies, spearheaded by people like Tea Party Patriots leaders Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler, Americans For Prosperity director Tim Phillips, and billionaires David and Charles Koch." Morris, Dick; McGann, Eileen (2011). Revolt!: How to Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs. Broadside Books. p. 27. ISBN 0062073303.

Later in the book, Morris and McGann write that "Conservatives, patriots, and lovers of freedom are deeply indebted to Charles and David Koch" for "forming and helping to fund Americans For Prosperity (AFP)--a key driving force behind the drive that led to victory in 2010." Morris, Dick; McGann, Eileen (2011). Revolt!: How to Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs. Broadside Books. p. 297. ISBN 0062073303. --The Cunctator (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Im glad you linked to that Washington Post article, your edit summary highlights exactly what im talking about. In it you say "Yet another reliable source confirms that Koch funds the Tea Party movement." (emphasis mine) when, in fact, the article says something much different. The chart you link to says in part "A guide to five groups that influence the movement" Again, influence, sure. Fund in total? No. Moreover the article attached to that chart says the the tea party isnt one monolithic group, how its actually a conglomerate of grassroots organizations and that the moneyed interests have largely stayed out. Bonewah (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Page hijacking? 99.181.132.152 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to your attempts to hijack many pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cunctator, do you have a specific change in mind? This is starting to look like a forum Bonewah (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Basically just trying to restore the edit that Arthur reverted, using the updated sources to resolve Arthur's concerns about RS. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made an edit that acknowledges that Koch only funds some organizations that are part of that Tea Party movement, not all of them. Abductive (reasoning) 15:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Im in favor of Abductive's edits. Bonewah (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)