Talk:Koch network/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

RFC: Inclusion of material about Fred Koch's politics and influence on this sons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One can see just above a long discussion of Fred Koch (the father of the brothers who are the topic of this article) and mention of the fact that he helped found the John Birch Society. The controversy is over mention of this fact at all, and more generally discussion of his influence in forming the political outlook of his sons. There is consensus already that this material should not appear in the lede, but controversy over talking about it in a background section. That Fred Koch was a JBS founder is indisputably documented, and we have sources which indicate a connection between his conservatism and that of his sons. No source puts the sons as JBS members, and some of the sources for Fred's membership specifically state that the sons rejected the organization. Two sources have in particular been discussed: a long article from the New Yorker by Jane Mayer, and a book by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks. It is contended on one side of the argument hat these are both unreliable due to anti-conservative bias.

Points to be resolved are:

• Appropriateness of discussion of Fred Koch's politics at all in the article
  • In particular, mention of the JBS in that context
• Reliability of sources to support that discussion
• Possibility of repurposing the article to discuss the whole family together (there is a redirect for this already, but previous consensus was to keep them separate. I'm bringing this up for possible reopening if other avenues fail)

Mangoe (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

See also, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (Oxford University Press), which briefly mentions the political activities of the Koch brothers. "[The brothers] happen to be sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, "known for its highly skeptical view of governance and for spreading fears of a Communist takeover"--the same sort of views the Koch sons are pushing today." (p. 102)[1] TFD (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

For inclusion

• I feel the material should be included, and that the JBS should be mentioned with the point clearly made that the sons turned away from it. It's the centerpiece of the Mayer article, which has sufficient quotations to lend credence to her thesis. Mangoe (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include something about the father's affiliation/activism and the sons' upbringing within a right-wing activist atmosphere, with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include The content provides relevant historical information and provides readers with a deeper understanding of the political influences of the Koch family. We should be careful not to draw conclusions not found in the sources, but that goes without saying. - MrX 01:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include If even a brief mention of the political activities of the Koch brothers in a book published by Oxford mentions their father's connection with JBS, then it is relevant. Mentioning the political views of people's parents, especially if they were prominent individuals, is fairly normal in biographical writing, whether it is the same or not. Both Jane Mayer and Linda McQuaig are highly respected journalists, and McQuaig's article even mentions that her father was a conservative. TFD (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include It is insufficient that Fred Koch's John Birch Society involvement is mentioned in his biography, because a reader of this article on the brothers wouldn't know to even look in the Fred Koch article. By not connecting the dots (that is, pointing out that Fred Koch was a cofounder of JBS and that the Koch brothers may have been influenced by the father's views), we are effectively hiding the connection, or potential connection, from readers of this article. There is no good reason to do this, especially since at least two known sources state there is a connection. The reader might, upon learning about the father's JBS involvement and its potential influence on the brothers, wish to do further research on the connection. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying we need to insert WP:OR into this article because otherwise the reader may not be able to make the connection themselves? Arzel (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I never said to include WP:OR. I suggest that you reread my comment. Just curious, Arzel, why it's so important to you to keep this information out of the article? It will improve the article by adding context. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should re-read what you wrote. It does not belong because you are trying to imply that the brothers ascribe to the JBS and absent of any direct proof you think we should include the implication (read OR) because it should be up to the reader to determine if this theory is correct. Now it may be that the Brothers do 100% believe in the ideology of the JBS, I don't think they do, but go find a source and make the connection. Arzel (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, nobody is saying any such thing. You are trying to infer that, but that's not what the sources say about the connection, and I don't think that's what anyone who wants to include that material actually believes. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe, that is exactly what CD is trying to do. Arzel (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no issue of original research here. The statements are made directly by sources at hand. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The OR is the attempt to use the father to imply the belief system of the brothers. It is quite clear. Arzel (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR given that of the two sources I've looked at so far, they both draw a link from father to sons. Since they do it, there is nothing original about it. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include, it is relevant background information on the political atmosphere of the brothers' family. Per MrX and TFD. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include, The New Yorker has a solid international reputation and a published book is more solid than an opinion expressed in this forum. The standard structuralist analysis of any person(s) often includes mention of subjects' childhood influences. Not to include would strike me as censorship rather than concern for rules. Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include - Per Binksternet and TFD's arguments. NickCT (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include - Per Mangoe, Binksternet and TFD's arguments -BoogaLouie (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious Include per Peter S Strempel. This is standard background stuff that we regularly include. FurrySings (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include – A number of sources supporting the applicability of this content have been provided in #You want sources? below. Mojoworker (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Against inclusion

Absent any actual non-opinion source connecting the sons to the John Birch Society, and noting that the topic regarding Fred Koch is covered in his biography, there is no reason to add the parenthetical observation that he was a JBS member to this article. Biographical articles which are wikilinked to the articles about others do not generally contain such asides, unless there is reason to believe the aside is strongly related to the lives of the children. In the case at hand, no such solid factual claims are made - other than a claim that libertarians are "extreme right" and mainstream Republicans are "extreme right". I consider such claims to be inherently "fringe" and not valid for making the connection in this article which is absolutely required to comply with WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• The vague involvement of Fred Koch shouldn't be included in an article about the brothers. Having "sources which indicate a connection between his conservatism and that of his sons" as the reason for inclusion is WP:Synthesis and taking the "what's the harm" approach violates WP:BLP. The sources aren't reliable in this context either -- both are opinions. The Koch Brothers' political activities have been given their own article for a reason and it is separate from anything else. The information is already included in the proper section here. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Against this attempt to link the brothers to the JBS. Arzel (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  Simply raising an objection carries no weight here. Please add an explanation relating your opposition to policy. Jojalozzo 04:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  It is vastly undue weight for this article. If readers want to know about the father they can click on his name. Some of those for the inclusion clearly want to make a synthesis connection that the brothers are part of the JBS and that they are also right-wing extremists. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Against, at this point. What we would need is a single non-opinion BLP-reliable source (not factually disproven) which specifically mentions a connection between the connection between Fred and the JBS and the brothers and the organizations they support. None has yet been provided, although I still suspect that such a source exists. Neither McQuaig nor Mayer does that. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism doesn't, either, at least in the quote provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Against because the article isn't about the Koch brothers' family nor about their upbringing. It's not even about the Koch brothers themselves and it's certainly not about their father's political activity. Inclusion is UNDUE, OR and SYN. Jojalozzo 21:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Without an explanation of how the father's involvement in JBS relates to the brothers' political development, inclusion is WP:UNDUE. Jojalozzo 22:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Against per Collect & others. Absent reliable & solidly factual sources, inclusion of this material runs afoul of WP:BLP as well as WP:V, WP:DUE, & WP:SYNTH.--JayJasper (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Against as this article is not about the political activities of Fred Koch and there is a lack of reliable sourcing. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no such lack. The book sources are quite reliable, including scholars as authors. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If only those books where scholarly, but alas they are opinions being pushed by the authors to imply that the brothers are part of the JBS. Arzel (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I guess I have been looking at more books than I have been sharing with others on this page. Please see one that I have added, one in which Charles Postel and other authors connect the Koch brothers' conservatism with the Bircher conservatism of their father. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Arzel, you have stated repeatedly that people are somehow implying that the brothers are part of the JBS. With all due respect, this is a straw man argument. Nobody is suggesting adding this implication to this page, nor do McGuire or any of the sources under discussion imply that the brothers are part of the JBS (at least not to my knowledge). What McGuire and the other sources state is that the brothers were likely influenced by the conservativism of Fred, who was a JBS member. This seems rather obvious, non-controversial, and is well-sourced. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • You say noone is trying to make that implication and right above you Bink is trying to make that implication. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Faulty comprehension? I say that the brothers continue in the conservative vein of their father, politically active like their father. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• against, per collect - WP:SYN and WP:COATRACKING of the worst sort -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Against, as all of the sourcing appears to be editorial in nature, and much of is comes from the Koch's political opponents. Nothing is necessary beyond a mention that Fred was a right-wing industrialist. Adding JBS is coatracking and goes against NPOV. Belchfire-TALK 23:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning source reliability

I've seen several "against" comments claim a lack of reliable sources for Fred Koch's involvement with the John Birch Society. This is inaccurate. A Google book search will return dozens of works making this statement, including books which talk about Fred Koch with no reference to business or politics at all. The fact has no want of sourcing, and we cannot honestly pretend that we don't want to include it because it might not be true.

Also, the concentration on just a couple of works in the discussion ignores the dozens of other books on current right-wing/conservative/libertarian politics, every one of which discusses the Koch family. And without exception they mention Fred's connection to the JBS. Of course, it is hardly surprising that these books take an adversarial picture of the family, so I'm sure that the anti-inclusion side of this is going to judge them all unreliable. I think this is getting tendentious. If someone would like to suggest to accessible sources defending the Koch brothers with adequate sourcing, and explaining how the picture of them is inadequate or inaccurate, we could consider those. At this point it's hard for me not to conclude that reason that the picture of them, as wealthy right/libertarian activist funders arising out of a larger conservative family, is so pervasive is because it is essentially accurate. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Any source which equates libertarianism and (Republican) conservatism is questionable for matters of political influence, such as whether FC's connection to the JBS is relevant to the Koch brothers' political views; however, it may still make it a notable relationship, and hence reportable in Wikipedia if attributed to those sources. However, none of the works so-far quoted, which are at all credible, have made the connection. Still, I don't doubt that such works exist, and (unlike Collect) I don't see a BLP violation, so I'm willing for the material to remain, provided a reliable source which makes the connection between Fred's connection to the JBS and the Koch's political activity. Furthermore, unless only sources which make the connection are included as references in the article, I will be forced to assume that there is an attempt to WP:COATRACK irrelevant material, and eventually act accordingly. Still, I do suspect that a reliable source for the connection can be found; just that it hasn't yet been presented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do these works actually make the equation you state? No credible work is going to say that libertarianism and the RP are separate, because anyone can see (e.g. Ron Paul's candidacy) that they aren't. There is also a considerable doubt over how libertarian the Koch brothers actually are, as embodied in the control struggle over the Cato Institute which one can read about in MSM reporting. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul supporters in the Rep party are not a trivial force. For example, in the state of Minnesota, Ron Paul supporters dominated the state Republican convention and the Republican nominee to run for the US Senate against Amy Klobuchar (Kurt Bills) was a Paul supporter. (He lost.) "Dr. Paul’s active, deep Minnesota supporters are winning Republican Party local offices and elected posts as well." --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

To deem a source unreliable because it equates libertarianism and Republican conservatism does not, in my view, make sense. For one thing, Ron Paul supporters (thus, essentially, libertarians) are an integral part of Republican conservatism, as is clear from Paul's strong primary showing and the activism of his supporters at the Republican convention. Moreover, Paul Ryan, the recent Republican VP candidate, famously looks to Ayn Rand, a libertarian, for ideological guidance, particularly on economic issues. Thus, it seems that there is at least a reasonable argument that libertarianism is one of the ideological underpinnings of Republican conservatism. Given this, I do not think it makes sense to exclude a source as unreliable simply because it makes this connection. If there are concerns about the reliability of sources (McQuaig, etc.), then as I have stated, the proper thing to do is not to exclude these sources from use in the article, but to use the sources and, if necessary, include in the text any necessary caveats about the sources. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Rubin's proposal to ignore any reliable source which equates libertarianism with principles held by conservative Republicans is untenable. Why would we stick our heads in the sand? If good sources make the connection, so do we. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As numerous sources have stated, including members of the American Right such as Buckley have stated, the American Right consists of traditional conservatives, libertarians and anti-communists and in many cases two or three of these trends are combined. It is called fusionism. The JBS for example strongly supports the free enterprise system and backed Ron Paul, just as they had Barry Goldwater. Their leader, Congressman Larry McDonald was actually a Democrat. While I appreciate Rubin's statement that libertarians are not conservatives, that is the term that is generally used as a synonym for the American Right. Note that Rothbard actually coined the term "New Right" to refer to their group, but Frank S. Meyer persuaded them to use the ahistorical term conservative. TFD (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

TFD makes a lot of sense. This article is about American political actors, so strictly accurate definitions of political movements give way to the commonly used terminology, even if it is inaccurate. The rider here is that calling yourself something does not necessarily make you thus; for the Kochs to claim to be libertarians might just be an alibi for ulterior motives to use that support base in their plutocratic strategies. Likewise, if Ryan says he looks to Ayn Rand, maybe he just read somewhere that this is a smart thing to say politically, but without any real meaning in practice. All we can say here for sure is 'so and so said such and such,' etc. Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I may have been hasty, but any source which makes questionable claims about the relationship between two political entities or ideologies (and, the questioning, being done by reliable sources) should have other claims about poiitical relationships questioned by us. Also, as I said, the source must connect Fred's connection to the JBS with the Koch brothers' political activity, and we must include that connection, rather than our article implying that the Kochs are connected to the JBS (unless you can find a reliable source for that). None of the quotes have yet made the required connection, but I haven't read the entire articles that have been provided as references. It's possible that a reliable source does make that connection, in which case, I would be in favor of inclusion, although WP:UNDUE is still a question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 15:30, November 21, 2012

Have you not read the books I pointed to? They connect the Koch brothers' ongoing politically conservative activism with that of their father. Plain as day. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have copies, and I haven't found specific quotes in Google Books which support the assertion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I trust you not to misquote the sources, but, as you've clearly misinterpreted the ones you have quoted, I would need to see a specific quote connecting Fred's relationship with the JBS to the brothers' political activities. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Description of JBS as a conservative political advocacy group

I have undone Jojalozzo's edit deleting the description of the John Birch Society as a "conservative political advocacy group." The point of the RfC has been to make the link between the conservative activities of the father and the political views of the brothers, which is well-sourced. Deleting the reference to JBS being a "conservative political advocacy group" only detracts from, and does not add to, the context and background regarding the brothers, and moreover it's clear from the page regarding the JBS that this is, in fact, what they are. Certainly, we can discuss the precise wording: for example, whether the word "advocacy" is the best word to use. However, deleting the reference entirely does not seem to make sense. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I keep seeing people say that this connection is well-sourced, but little or none of this supposedly robust sourcing has found its way into the article. As I see it, we have several separate, but related, issues here. There is the connection between the father and the brothers; the connection between the father and JBS; and the connection (IF there is one) between JBS and the brothers. All need sourcing to merit inclusion. Without said sourcing, gratuitous mention of JBS's status as a "conservative political group" stands on thin ice, here in this article.

Do try to remember that the article is about the brothers, and not the father. Belchfire-TALK 23:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please review the serveral different sources mentioning the connection that are discussed in the RfC (McQuaig, the New Yorker, and others). In any event, I think that both your and my views have been articulated, including with respect to the appropriate description of the JBS. I would welcome the input of other editors. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of proper weight. We've established that the father was very conservative, now why does that merit a mention of JBS as the only example of his politics in an article that isn't even about him? Try to remember: sourcing does not equal relevance. Belchfire-TALK 23:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Since our sources seem to think that it epitomizes his politics, I don't see why we have to dissent from them. And I think it is only fair, for the sake of those for whom the JBS is not immediately recognized as the quintessential American right-wing organization, to give some capsule identification of it here. Mangoe (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that "conservative political advocacy group" has been removed, and in a subsequent edit "right-wing" as a descriptor of JBS was added. I find it somewhat unfortunate that this was done in the midst of this discussion on the talk page, when no consensus among editors has yet been reached. However, as it happens, I can live with the page as it stands now and, in particular, with "right-wing" as a descriptor of JBS (not sure about other editors, though). ChicagoDilettante (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree these edits are unfortunate, but the text that was introduced in the midst of the discussion was "Fred Koch was a founding member of the John Birch Society, a conservative political advocacy group." [2] and then when that was reverted to status quo, rather than supporting the status quo, an advocate of its inclusion restored it here and again here. That latter interference with reverting to status quo led me to edit it with less weight, replacing "conservative political advocacy group" with "right-wing". Please feel free to restore the text to status quo until we achieve consensus. Jojalozzo 14:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an already contentious debate and now you want to try and tag the brothers with "Right Wing" as well and call that the new status quo? That is not how WP works. Arzel (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Looked at another way, the status quo was established by me on October 13, 2012, when I edited the lede to include Fred and the JBS connection. This lasted for more than three weeks, then, on November 6, 2012, Arthur Rubin deleted this information. Since that date, we have been discussing this issue. As others have noted, the JBS opposers have not yet cited any legitimate for hiding the connection, especially we now know of at least three relevant sources. I do agree that the Background section is a better place than the lede. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not calling the current ("right wing") state status quo but I was hoping to avert an edit war with a compromise proposal. The status quo article during this discussion has no mention of JBS. Jojalozzo 04:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am also in favor of removing the "relevant" tag based on the arguments that I and others made in the RfC. The remaining issue, I think, is whether the connection should be expressly drawn between Fred's involvement with JBS and the conservative political views of the brothers. This was the focus of the RfC, but currently, even though JBS is mentioned, the connection to the borthers' views is not explicitly made, even though we have at least three sources supporting this connection (per the RfC discussion). I would welcome the views of other editors on this question. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no basis to do anything based on the RfC until the RfC is completed. Belchfire-TALK 06:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think CD has a legitimate reason to put JBS into the article. The "against" or "oppose" voters have not been able to establish a good reason for keeping this widely noted fact out of the article. Our reliable sources mention it; we would be remiss to avoid it. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have said many times, we need a reliable source which connects Fred's relationship to the JBS to the Koch's political activities. The best I've seen so far is their appearing in consecutive sentences, without any indication of a relationship between them. Without that, it shouldn't be in the article (and, the status quo, is that it isn't in the article). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(out) The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (Oxford University Press) says on p. 102, "[The brothers] happen to be sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, "known for its highly skeptical view of governance and for spreading fears of a Communist takeover"--the same sort of views the Koch sons are pushing today."[3] If a brief section about the Koch brothers in book about the Tea Party movement finds this fact significant, then we should mention it. It seems straightforward that if we have an article about brothers we mention their parents. Brothers by definition share a least one parent. I see no reason though to mention views that the father influenced the children, merely that they shared political views. TFD (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I am beginning to doubt whether there is any discussion of the Koch family's politics which doesn't mention the Birchers. At this point I'm going to have insist that the opposition to inclusion find some sources which state that their father wasn't an influence and that his involvement in the JBS had nothing to do with his sons. Plenty of sources have been presented so far and the argument that every one of them is tainted with left-wing bias is too tendentious to take seriously. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, we must have a reliable source asserting the connection between Fred's views and the brothers' views. Also, the present state of the article implies that the brothers support the JBS. That I will try to fix, although I question the relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we do need to show a connection, just that sources normally mention their father's "conservative" ideology. Fred Koch made his fortune working for Joseph Stalin (Soviet leader from 1922-1953), which is interesting as well. Do you suggest we mention that for "balance"? TFD (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, I've read enough of the relevant passages to see that they all assert such a connection. The narrative is very simple and presented with a very strong consensus: the brothers were raised in a household in which extreme (by the standards of the day) right-wing ideas were held, and their current conservatism reflects that upbringing. Your personal refusal to accept this is of no weight; if you want prevail against it, then you need to provide some sources which interpret that upbringing differently. Right now the only contrary evidence is the unwillingness of a group editors, and given that Fred Koch's relationship to the JBS is inarguable fact and that there is an array of sources connecting that to the politics of his sons, that unwillingness needs to be backed up by some reliable authority. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it that no sources for this purported universally recognized fact have found their way into this article? Belchfire-TALK 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone, one of the sources states "the political views of the Koch brothers have always been on the extreme right, nurtured by their father, Fred Koch, a cofounder of the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society" (Billionaires' Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality, Beacon Press, 2012, ISBN 0807003409, co-written by journalist Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, the director of the Graduate Program in Taxation at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.). This was discussed above in the section "Fred and the John Birch Society" and is quite clear. There are other sources mentioned above as well. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, this is simply disingenuous. You've been a participant in this long enough to be aware that every time the statement is inserted, with source, one of those arguing against inclusion removes it. At any rate, a simple Google search got me nine different books which make the inference, and that's just the ones I could preview. Of course, every one of these works is, shall we say, less than positive in its assessment of the Koch's influences, but then, that's just the point, isn't it? It's impossible to mention the JBS without the taint of its extremely negative reputation, and indeed one book I found characterizes the Kochs' libertarianism as more right-wing than the JBS. The base problem here is that admitting the linkage (which is factually inarguable, as we've been over plenty) is terribly damaging, not that there's no linkage. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Show me. Links, please. Something credible. Beacon Press (run by the Unitarian Church) and Linda McQuaig (a hard-left socialist) don't cut it. The more you keep insisting there is robust sourcing without actually producing something for examination, the more I'm beginning to doubt your claims. Belchfire-TALK 03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You want sources?

Here's two I came up with, quite easily:

• Barlett, Donald L.; Steele, James B. (1994). America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?. Touchstone. p. 215. "The company is run by two of the founder's sons, Charles and David Koch, longtime supporters of conservative causes. (Their father, Fred C. Koch, who died in 1967, was a founding member of the John Birch Society.)"
• Skocpol, Theda (2012). Obama and America's Political Future. Harvard University Press. p. 68. "Several of these organizations, along with right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, have been bankrolled by a small number of far-right businessmen, most notably the libertarian Koch brothers, sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society."

There are others. Now, perhaps you will sneer at publication by Touchstone, though I see no real issue with Donald L. Barlett, a well-known investigative reporter. Pushing Harvard as an unmitigated nest of leftist ideologues strains credulity. More to the point, it's about time some of the exclusionists here did their own due diligence and sought out these sources themselves instead of pretending that they don't exist. As I said, a Google search will show plenty of book-published possibilities. Mangoe (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fail. I see nothing about linkage between the father's politics and those of the sons. Evidently, you didn't understand the issue. Belchfire-TALK 04:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec/duplicate) Please pay attention to what you are quoting: Neither of those sources makes a connection. If we had written something like that, it would have been WP:SYNTHESIS; it's WP:OR to assert that adjacent sentences or clauses imply a connection. I'm now starting to doubt that there is a credible source for the connection, if you (collectively) haven't been able to find one over the past month or so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

These sources give us no reason to include the JBS connection in this article. They simply say Fred as a founder of JBS but do not connect that to the sons in any other way. I assume the authors mention JBS because they think there's a connection (or would like the reader to think there's a connection) but they do not explain it. Without an explanation, it's just unfounded speculation or wishful projection. I think we need a source that explains how Fred's JBS involvement relates to the brothers' political activities. Jojalozzo 04:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sources above (not in this section) appear to make a connection; I think the best we can do is to say that: Some liberal commentators have asserted a connection between Fred's membership in the JBS with the brothers' current political views. The statement about Fred and the JBS should not be in this article unless we can claim a connection. (I see someone has removed my more neutral-appearing explanatory statement, for which I couldn't find a source, without comment.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. At one point in time, I assented to inclusion of the fact about JBS if it was moved to the Background section, and stricken from the lead. This was simply a matter of assigning the proper weight.

But in light of the lack of sourcing, now I'm rethinking that position. After all... of all the facts we might choose to mention about Fred C. Koch, why pick that one - and only that one - to the exclusion of everything else we might say about a very notable and very interesting man? The obvious answer - really, the only allowable answer - is that it has a bearing on the topic of the article. But if we can't source the connection, and it appears at this point that we can't, then we really don't have any reason to mention Fred Koch at all. Belchfire-TALK 04:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it is usual to fail to mention the father in an article about brothers? TFD (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

First off, I don't accept your expertise to judge their conclusions as speculative. But more to the point, I doubt that any of you really believe the alternative theory: that the father's politics had nothing to do with his sons. I have yet to find a source which denies such a linkage, which says that in spite of their father's politics, they came to have similar politics independently. It seems to me that you are relying on process to protect you from any obligation to produce such evidence. And again, I have to insist that you put some effort into researching this. Both of these sources makes a connection, and every other source that juxtaposes the father with the sons makes a connection, and none of you make any effort to show that the connection is unreasonable.

I understand the issue perfectly well. The presenting problem is that the connection reflects unfavorably on the sons; if it didn't, there wouldn't be anything like this level of resistance to including it, and the mere fact that so many sources find it important to mention it would be considered sufficient justification for us to mention it. Everything else is a rationalization of unreasonable standards for inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We already have a source, which is discussed above and states "the political views of the Koch brothers have always been on the extreme right, nurtured by their father, Fred Koch, a cofounder of the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society." This is McQuaig and Brooks. This source cannnot validly be dismissed by stating that McQuaig is a "hard-left socialist," as BelchFire did above. Beyond the fact that this is a dubious assertion, McQuaig is an esteemed journalist, and Brooks is a scholar at one of the preeminent law schools in Canada. If you want to add some caveat about McQuaig and Brooks to the text, we can discuss it, but this source cannot legitimately be disregarded, nor should it be. Beyond this, even if (contrary to fact) there were no sources making the express connection that the father's views influenced the brothers, mentioning the father, who raised the brothers, and the father's JBS involvement would still add historical context that would be of interest to our readers, and would thus improve the article, and there is no justification for censoring thsi contextual information--especially since, as Mangoe has pointed out, it is the norm for treatises discussing the brothers' political activities to mention that they come from this family that has a history of being involved in conservative political causes. This is called providing context (just like mentioning the father at all, and that he founded Koch Industries, which brothers now run, provides context). Adding this conext to the brothers' political activities will, in fact, make this article a stronger piece. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If what I said about Linda McQuaig is "dubious", that would have to be because Wikipedia itself is such an unreliable source. Our very own article about the woman says in the lead that: The National Post newspaper has describe McQuaig as "Canada's Michael Moore". Sorry, but the woman is not an objective source, and can't be considered reliable when her views are uncorroborated.

As to the rest, I strongly suggest you read up on WP:SYNTH. It's pretty clear to me that you're having trouble with the concept. Belchfire-TALK 05:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Belchfire, but you cannot disregard a source (McQuaig) as unreliable simply because you think she's a "socialist" and because the National Post Newspaper compared her to Michael Moore. One problem is that the National Post Newspaper is itself a mouthpiece for the right. To quote from the Wikipedia article about it, "Black established the Post to provide a voice for Canadian conservatives and to combat what he considered to be a liberal bias in Canadian newspapers[citation needed]." Also, "Since Izzy Asper's acquisition of the National Post, the paper has become a strong voice in support of the state of Israel and its government. The Post was one of the few Canadian papers to offer unreserved support to Israel during its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon during 2006. One of its columnists referred to Hezbollah as 'cockroaches.'" So, you see, this paper calling McQuaig "Canada's Michael Moore" is meaningless. Beyond this, there is also Brooks, who is also a contributing author, and to my knowledge nobody has sought to impugne his character,ChicagoDilettante (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I believe it is you who misunderstands the WP:SYNTH. According to this policy, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In fact, nobody is suggesting combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion. The point is that various sources state that the father was involved in JBS. This is usueful contextual information that should be added. Some sources, like McQuaig and Brooks, go further and specifically refer to the father's influence on the brothers. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not I who thinks McQuaig is a socialist; it's the sources used to develop her bio here on Wikipedia. If you dispute that fact, go edit her article. Pending that, it should be clear to any thinking person that she is a political opponent of the Koch brothers. Her unreliability does not stem from her socialist views; it stems from her demonstrated lack of objectivity. This really isn't complicated for an honest person to figure out. Belchfire-TALK 05:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You cannot discredit McQuaig's book; she co-wrote it with Neil Brooks, the director of the Graduate Program in Taxation at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. The combination of McQuaig and Brooks writing a book is a reliable source, especially in the absence of a source saying the opposite. More than that the numerous other sources also cover the connection between Fred's extreme right-wing politics and his sons' similar right-wing stance. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are these "numerous sources"? You guys keep repeating that claim, but you can't back it up. So far, you have one, and it's of questionable value. That pretty much makes it a fringe opinion. Belchfire-TALK 06:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The source for McQuaig's article says, "Linda McQuaig is a prominent, admired, and award-winning Canadian journalist writing about vital issues of concern to everyone. She was a national reporter for the Toronto Globe and Mail before joining the Toronto Star where she now covers Canadian politics with her trademark combination of solid research, keen analysis, irreverence, passion and wit. She's easy to read, never boring, and fearless. The National Post called her "Canada's Michael Moore.""[4] It appears to be a compliment. TFD (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No one would accuse Michael Moore of being objective. Still, as, neither is a professional psychiatrist, it would be sufficient to include "Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks assert that Fred's political views influenced that of the brothers." (So far, you have no other sources for that influence.) I disagree with Belchfire that it's a "fringe opinion", but, nonetheless, it's an opinion, and needs to be noted as such. Furthermore, it needs to be noted in the article, or there would be no assertion of a reason from Fred's affiliations to be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, CD's proposal of 15 November seems appropriate. The current text (even as I modified it) deviates from that to the point of WP:SYNTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You have no foundation for calling this synthesis. The sources plainly support the one-sentence summary. Binksternet (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That does not appear to be the context of the comment since the opinion piece reporting that opinion piece says "McQuaig is a prominent, admired, and award-winning Canadian journalist". In any case, an op-ed in Conrad Black's or anyone else's newspaper is not a definitive statement. I would prefer anyway just saying that Fred Koch was a founding member of the JBS which is a fact that reliable sources point out in even brief descriptions of the brothers. TFD (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've found a source which explicitly discusses the JBS connection and the upbringing of the Koch sons as conservatives, which, I should think, really settles the argument: Doherty, Brian (2007). Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. New York: PublicAffairs. pp. 406–408. Doherty works at Reason and cannot be considered a left-wing source; the book has many, many positive reviews. The passage is a bit over a page long, and unfortunately you cannot see the key passage from the paperback edition as it appears in Google Books, but for some reason an eBook edition (which is unpaginated) shows the key text. After spelling out Fred Koch's disillusionment with the Soviets and his JBS participation, Doherty writes the following:

Fred Koch raised his four boys in the catechism. "He was constantly speaking to us children about what was wrong with government and government policy," remembers David Koch. "It's something I grew up with—a fundamental point of view that big government was bad, and imposition of government controls on our lives and economic fortunes was not good."

The quote is cited and I see no reason to doubt its authenticity. The passage justifies an explicit tie of the sons' politics to the father's, JBS founding and all. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The quote doesn't mention the JBS, but an appropriate sentence could be constructed. I have no further objection, provided that the sentence in the article is actually supported by that source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent source for Fred as a political influence. Unless someone can explain how it supports the JBS connection, I propose we identify Fred as a right-wing or ultra- conservative who had significant influence on his sons' political education. If Fred's JBS founding is the only connection and the son's were/are not involved in JBS, then including anything about it here appears to violate WP:BLP policy. Jojalozzo 18:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The characterization as right-wing or ultra conservative have no place in the description. Fred was clearly anti-communist, but to rephrase that as right-wing extremism is clearly false, especially when anti-communistic views were hardly extreme at the time. Do not view the past through the the prism of today, it is a poor way to view a historical event in proper context. Arzel (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The JBS is characterized as ultra-conservative, so I jumped to conclusions. So, let's say Fred was "anti-communist" then. What is added by mentioning JBS? Jojalozzo 22:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, it is not a WP:BLP violation to say the Fred was a JBS member, as long as we don't also state or imply that the brothers are. We would actually be remiss if we were to mention Fred and his influence on the brothers, but then refrain from mentioning the most signficant political fact about Fred, namely his JBS involvement. This is information that is of obvious historical and contextual signficance, especially since we now have at least two sources for the father's political influence on the brothers. Moreover, I note that the numerous other materials that Mangoe found regarding the brothers' political activities mention the father's role in founding JBS. This seems to be the norm, and we should not depart from it here (doing so would smack of censorship). ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That is so wrong. Any fact we include in the article must be connected to the subject of the article, namely the political activities of the Koch brothers. We have another source for that connection, so this one is unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You are interpreting the scope of the article too narrowly. Why, for example, do we mention Fred Koch at all in this article? Why do we mention Koch Industries? Why do we mention Claude R. Lamb? Why do we mention the brothers' donations to arts organizations? None of these matters directly constitute political activities of the Koch brothers. They all, however, provide contextual information about the brothers. I find it interesting that the editors who are going to the mat to exclude Fred/JBS have never complained about this other contextual information. In fact, however, Fred, his involvement in the JBS, and his well-documented influence on the brothers' political views, are far more relevant to the brothers' political activities. We need to include this information, as other sources regarding the brothers' politics have, as context and to help draw connections, so that readers gain a deeper understanding of this material, perhaps as a starting point for further research, perhaps simply as a point of interest to any reader who lands here seeking information about the brothers' political activities. Excluding this information would hide it, would weaken the article, and is unnecessary. ChicagoDilettante (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, again. Specifics:

1. I'm not entirely sure why we mention Fred C. Koch at all.
2. Some of the alleged political activity is through Koch Industries and the Claude R. Lamb Charitable Foundation.
3. We mention the brothers' donations to arts organization because this is the most relevant article to add it to; we don't have a charitable donations of the Koch brothers article, and listing under the individual brothers' articles seems misleading.

• And, now that you have (finally) found a source for the connection between Fred's relationship with the JBS and the Koch brothers' political views, I think it probably should be in the article, although WP:UNDUE is a respectable argument which might suggest it not be in the article. Including the information without adding the connection and a source is either WP:COATRACK or making a (not-quite-BLP-violating) inference.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source, which states "Fred Koch became a founding member of the hard-right John Birch Society and imbued all of his sons with a strong distaste for government." (Lisa Rab, "The Other Koch Brother," Village Voice, August 24, 2011, http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-08-24/news/william-bill-koch-the-other-koch-brother-tea-party/). Not sure how the other editors feel about it, given that it's the Village Voice, but unless there's a consensus against it should be added. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

None of these sources make a direct connection between JBS and the Koch brothers. Saying a) Fred was a founding member of JBS and b) he was a significant influence on his sons' political development does nothing to connect the sons to JBS except put them in the same sentence. Also no one is factoring in Fred's rejection of JBS in 1967 (because Welch was too extreme), which could explain the sons' lack of involvement and it's irrelevance. I assume there are no sources that discuss the influence JBS had on the Koch brothers and until we locate one, I see no need for bringing JBS into this article. Jojalozzo 02:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

Following a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected this article for 2 weeks, which is about the amount of time left remaining in this RfC. Should consensus develop sooner, feel free to notify me on my talk page and I will drop the protection. For unrelated edits, please use the {{edit protected}} template.

The protection was necessary because it undermines the RfC to have one group of people discussing the additions in depth here, but another (overlapping) group of people also editing the article on the same topic.

I have reverted back to the version omitting the details in question for two reasons. First, it's the pre-RfC version, and it is only fair/reasonable for the article to be in that state while the matter is being discussed. Second, there could possibly be WP:BLP issues here; I'm not saying that means the information shouldn't stay (honestly I couldn't possibly care less), but it does mean that erring on the side of caution (i.e., not including contentious information) is the safer course. Should a consensus find the information to be appropriately neutral, of relevant weight, well-sourced, etc., then there's no inherent problem with it going in, but until that's settled, leaving it out seems more prudent. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I wish this rollback had occurred before several of us spent the weekend arguing about, drafting, and tweaking the language in the artlcle, which is just now starting to take the proper shape. It's a shame that all of this time was wasted by many of us, although I realize, Qwyrzian, that you only learned about the situation with this page recently, so perhaps the time spent this weekend was unavoidable. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My other point, Qwyrxian, is that I suspect that some (though not necessarily all) of the editors trying to exclude mentioning the connection (father and JBS to brothers through influence) are motivated by ideology. In particular, it seems that no matter what arguments we make for inclusion, and no matter what sources we find supporting the connection, there is always a new reason articulated by the excluders. For this reason, in my opinion, it now seems quite unlikely that a consensus will emerge in the RfC. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The same exact thing could be said about the includers. That they seem have a vendetta against the Koch Brothers and will stop at nothing to make it appear that they are right wing extremists. At least you know admit that your goal is to show that the brothers are connected to the JBS through their father. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, you read a lot into the paranthetical phrase "father and JBS to brothers through influence." Unfortunately, the words you are putting into my mouth are not ones that I said. All I was doing was using a shorthand for the notion that the father, a right wing idealogue, as evidenced by his involvement in the John Birch Society, raised his sons to share these same values. We now have three sources supporting this view: McQuaig and Norris, Doherty, which includes a quote by David Koch, and the Village Voice article. None of this, however, is good enough, and a brand new argument has surfaced just in the past 24 hours (after we found three sources supporting inclusion). This new argument is that--while it's ok to mention that the father was right wing and that he influenced the brothers (because, of course, the sources we have spent time digging up say this)--it is still not ok to mention that the father founded JBS. This argument is not something we have heard by any editor in the past three weeks, and has only arisen now that the sources for the father's influence on the brothers have been extensively developed. But of course, if we say that the father was right wing and that he influenced his sons in this direction, it's only natural to provide evidence of the father's right wing radicalism by mentioning the signature fact of his political activities, namely his participation in founding JBS. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Ah -- so you feel we should be sure to point out the father's "right wing radicalism" but your problem is that the sons are not "right wing radicals" and second;y you miss the reason for the father's anti-communism -- the killings of his personal friends by Stalin. Which we do not mention even parenthetically here -- it is relevant to the father's biography, and not particularly to the sons' biographies. Cheers - but please read WP:NPOV and abide by it. Collect (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The JBS was an important part of modern American conservatism. Welch invested in the National Review, and NR editor Willi Schlammn joined them. Morrie Ryskind and Ben Gitlow were prominent members, as were members of the Hunt and Coors families. They were a vital force in organizing conservatives in the Goldwater and Reagan campaigns in the 1960s. Even though they suffered a decline following intemperate comments by Welch, they continue to be a part of the conservative movement and were invited to CPAC. Glenn Beck has popularized Cleon Skousen's books among Tea Party supporters. It is certainly not my intention to malign the brothers, merely to understand them. TFD (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

When the JBS originated there was a great fear (real or imagined) of soviet style communism in the US. Fred was vehemotly against that, as his bio states. The current view of the JBS is much less popular (it would seem), and it appears that some editors are trying to tag the Koch brothers with the current JBS movement because of the fathers involvement with the origination of the movement. This is a common problem on WP, an attempt to view history through the prism of today. It is especially harmful when there is plenty of resources that talk about the brothers ideology. When you look at the components of this discussion it is quite clear that there need not be any political discussion of the father in this article unless the goal is to try and make the brothers look like right wing extremists because of the current view of the JBS. It is even more disturbing when you have editors like CD calling Fred Koch a right wing radical when his views were hardly anything radical in his time. Simply put, subtle political POV pushing has no place in WP. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the JBS is/was generally viewed as a right-wing radical organization, and that Fred was thus a right-wing radical. However, this was an offhand comment on the talk page. Please look at my edits to the article, as I never proposed using this language in the article to descrive Fred and the JBS. In fact, I have been very flexible in the phrasing. Call Fred what you want: "right-wing radical," "right-wing," "conservative," "far-right conservative." This is a minor point, at least to me, given that different people have different definitions of these terms. I simply used "right-wing radical" in an informal way on this talk page, and it appears to have ruffled some feathers. Again, this is a semantic point to me, although I suspect the designation is important to other editors. For the record, I am very flexible in how we describe Fred's politics. We certainly do have to mention his influence on the brothers' politics, and this is well-sourced. Omitting it would be censorship. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe you for a second. You clearly want to make a direct implication that the sones are right-wing extremists/radicals. And you are not flexible except in the manner in which their radicalism is expressed. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that although the father being involved with the JBS in the 50s and the brothers' current activities are similar, we should not mention it because readers might confuse the "hardly radical" JBS then with the "right wing extremists" of today. TFD (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What the father did in the 50's has no bearing on what the Brothers are doing today. I don't believe that the brothers activies are similar to the fathers in the 50's. Fred was worried about communism, the Brothers appear to be worried about government over-reach, but not full blown communism. I've never seen them make any such statement. What the JBS is today has no bearing on what it was when Fred was a member decades ago. What I am saying is that there is clearly an attempt to paint the sons with the current incarnation of the JBS, even though there is no reliable sources that I have seen that make that connection (hence my statement of viewing history through the prism of today). The only way to get around that is to go into a ton of detail about the fathers beliefs in the 50's in this article, which is pointless. Just leave all that crap out of here. If a reader wants to know about Fred they can clearly click on the name, people are not stupid. Arzel (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I was going to let this drop, but I find on further contemplation of how to proceed that I cannot do so. Your statement about "what the father did" isn't merely an opinion; it is an assertion which the sources thus far unanimously reject. Furthermore, it seems to me that the passage that Doherty quotes from one of the sons shows that the sons themselves reject it. If you are going to maintain this assertion, it is now up to you to prove it by providing contrary sources, for in a contest between your evaluation and sources, the sources must prevail. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

I vigorously oppose versions 2-4 below and support only version 1, for the reasons I have stated. You guys do not get to hide well-sourced, relevant facts from readers. We have three sources saying that Fred Koch, who had right-wing views as evidenced by founding JBS, imparted those views on the brothers, which is the source of their politics. On the other hand, you have pointed to no source in contravention of this fact, yet you still advocate excluding this well-sourced fact. This amounts to censorship. Moreover, most editors who have weighed in on this in connection with the RfC (in the for/against inclusion sections above), have voted for inclusion. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Version 1

Here is the version we were working on before the page was frozen. We can develop it and discuss it here (as we should have done in the first place):

The phrase "Koch brothers" generally refers to the sons of Fred C. Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, a radical right advocacy group. Fred Koch imparted his right-wing views to his sons, and their conservatism was expressed from an early age. Fred Koch's most politically active sons are Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, who bought out their brothers Frederick and Bill from Koch Industries in 1983.

Jojalozzo 17:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is largely my version and I have no objection per se. See the following subsection, however. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to this version. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I demur, on a number of grounds already and subsequently stated. Collect (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a chance. As Collect stated there are a number of issues already stated. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

For those of you (so far Collect and Arzel) who come out against the proposed language, I would suggest that you offer specific proposed revisions to the draft currently being considered, rather than merely stating your opposition to the current draft, so that we can move the ball forward. Certainly, I and other editors may (and probably will) disagree with portions of your proposed revisions, but at least that way we will be discussing specifics. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I must agree. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a good version and should be incorporated into the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• not just no but hell no - this article is about the brothers, and not the father - to bring up the father's activities before the actual subjects of the article is the worst of POV pushing -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Version 2

Here's a proposed rewrite:

The phrase "Koch brothers" refers to the sons of Fred C. Koch. Fred Koch was a right-wing, conservative, anti-communist who imparted his political views to his sons from an early age. The most politically active Koch brothers are Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch. Charles and David bought out their brothers Frederick and Bill from Koch Industries in 1983.

Since it appears that the Fred's JBS membership is mostly an indicator of his anti-communism I choose not to include it in this article about the brothers who were not members. This avoids placing undue weight on a tangential fact. Jojalozzo 17:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should comment on this draft here or further down. You need to trim references [1]-[5]; only one or two are needed, and if a single reference doesn't support the entire sentence, it's synthesis. I haven't check the references this time, but none of the 3 references for the next sentence supported "imparted his right-wing views to his sons"; possibly the 4 references here include one that does. And, unless a single one of the four sources supports both clauses, it's WP:SYNTHESIS again. Jojalozzo's draft seems feasible, but it may suffer from WP:SYNTHESIS, unless a single source supports the entire second sentence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This comment was to Version 1 (at the time). I'm not going to move it, because it makes little sense there, due to additional comments. I'm not saying I like Version 1, but something like it was in place at one point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Version 3

Charles and David Koch are the sons of Fred C. Koch who founded the family business in 1940.

Clear and per the salient facts as to where the money came from, without making the "he was evil" SYNTH that he was an extreme radical right wing anti-communist nutjob who hated blacks which seems to be what is intended by some, alas. Anyone who wants to read more about him can simply click on the bluelink, which is how most articles work. And neither SYNTH nor OR are present in this proposal, nor does it raise WP:BLP issues. Collect (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

They can click on the link, where his radical right politics can be safely segregated from his sons to create the appearance that he had no influence on them at all. I mean, heck, if we're going to assume the most bad faith about the various proposals, why not? The problem in any case is that this is against what the best source says: that his conservatism had a huge influence on his sons, as they themselves state. If Fred Koch was an extreme radical right wing anti-communist nutjob who hated blacks and had a lot of influence on the politics of his sons, I don't see hiding that as being a neutral approach. We keep coming back to the same problem: you express the view that the facts are embarrassing. Well, I don't see how that can be allowed to be a factor here. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Version 4

Charles and David Koch are brothers who have been heavily involved in financing conservative, libertarian, and free-market individuals and organizations. blah blah blah, more high level details about the general nature of their involvement (where they got their money, and papa's influence on their politics goes in the body)

This is the article about the brothers political activity, and the lead sentence and lead section cover the actual subject of the article. The background information goes in the body of the article, if/where/when connections and influences are directly and specifically made as having connections to/direct influences on the brothers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a much better overall structure and I applaud your fresh thinking. but the issues raised in this RFC will still need to be resolved when Fred's influence is described. How do you propose we word that part? Jojalozzo 22:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Though now that I reread your proposal, it sounds like you are proposing a new introduction for the article. This RFC is about the Background section of the article, right? No one has suggested putting anything about the JBS in the lead. Jojalozzo 23:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the lede itself is so fucked up tells you something about the whole damn article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree we have a long to go and may have the cart before the horse in this RFC and I'd be happy to work with you on that in a new section, but it's not the subject of this discussion. Jojalozzo 01:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The extremism issue

The big issue behind the issue is that we don't need our own opinions to find people calling the Koch sons extremists, as we have a long list of people lined up to do so. Indeed, the main driving force for this article is the wealth of investigation of all the money they're spending and all the organizations over which they appear to have some control, by persons who are quite concerned about the positions these organizations espouse.

Nobody is arguing that the sons' positions are not different from those of their father. But the evidence is pretty strong that the sons hold positions that represent an evolution from those of their father, and that there is no sharp break or radical repudiation. The Doherty passage testifies to that, and I see no sign that he is a hostile source. The impression I get is that David, at least, holds to a libertarianism that's closer to mainstream American conservatism than say what the Libertarian Party has espoused.

The historical problem is that the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of neoconservatism have shifted the landscape so as to put the Birchers in the position of being made, at least as originally constituted, irrelevant. At the same time, the Koch sons themselves stand as evidence that the Cato Institute brand of libertarianism looks like a position that has evolved from paleoconservativism, with perhaps the biggest shift coming in the abandonment of paleo positions on immigration and sexuality. I think the solution here is more context, so that they don't sound as though they sprung, like Athena, out of David Nolan's forehead. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's really quite hard to argue that libertarianism isn't a radical position. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you even know what Radical means? Not too mention you just insulted tens of millions of people with your statement. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Radical" is not an insult. I would think most libertarians seek change at society's roots. Jojalozzo 17:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Insult or not - absent reliable sources stating "Libertarianism is radical right-wing" we can not use that on Wikipedia, whether or not you personally know it to be true. Collect (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. While libertarian is radical, it's clearly not always right-wing. I was just responding to Arzel's post which did not address the issue of sources. Ad hominem gets my dander up. Jojalozzo 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect, at the moment it seems like what will happen if/when some comes up with such a source, you or one of the other anti-includers will find a way to claim that it isn't reliable because you don't like who is saying it. It's time for you to start doing some of the heavy lifting. We've done lots of searches for sources, and you've presented exactly nothing that I can see that argues a contrary position to what we've found. Right now it seems to me that everyone we've tracked down, including even a libertarian source, thinks there is some sort of continuity between the old radical right and the Koch strain of libertarianism, and that the continuity is specifically the Koch family. I really don't think we should have to do all the work on this: if you want to exclude a fact because you don't like the conclusion that nearly everyone draws from it, it's up to you to come up with some sourcing to back up your dislike. Mangoe (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper sourcing in BLPs is required by that policy. I note that you have not refuted my points above - and that some editors seem convinced that it is a proper goal of Wikipedia to show how evil a person is. By the way, I do recommend you read and abide by WP:AGF as your post above might be construed as volating it. Collect (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually - the sons do not hold the same positions as their father. Nor even the same positions as each other. Two - the fact that some people label them as "extremists" only means that represents their opinion, and since others do not find them "extremist" it is clear that we can not use that label in Wikipedia's voice. Three -- "libertarianism" is not "radical right wing" nor do I find reliable sources making the claim. That you now say only that it is "radical" does not improve your claim. Thus on three substantial grounds I find that using what you "know" to be the "truth" is insufficient to make such claims in any WP:BLP complainat article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 November 2012

Sorry, Collect, but that does not make sense. You object to the terminology used by some political scientists who refer to groups such as the JBS and the Tea Party movement as "extremist" or "radical right". Then you object to comparing the TPM and the JBS because the JBS was extemist and radical right. However, whether we call them by those terms, or right-wing, conservative or libertarian or any other term, they are still similar ideologies. TFD (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And again - Wikipedia tends to use opinions cited as opinions. And you still manage to assert your own opinions as the WP:TRUTH even when the talk pages on those articles do not support what you WP:KNOW. And I would note you do not even try to defend the claim that "libertarianism" is "radical right wing" here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the JBS should be called "radical right" or "libertarian", but whether it should be mentioned. Why are you bringing up these terms? TFD (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the post to which I was replying? Did you notice the other editor's apparent claim that "libertarianism" is "radical right wing" and the claim that the sons are of the same political position as their dad? It would help if you noted that - and since the reason that editor gives for even mentioning the JBS is to make clear to the reader what he knows to be the truth - that the sons are "radical right wing" and since sources do not back that claim up, then my post should have been quite clearly on point to anyone reading it. Collect (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The more this is discussed, the more it becomes abundantly clear that these few editors are really only interested in pushing a political POV. Initially they stated that (parapharse) "Nah, that is not the goal, it is just an interesting piece of information that the reader should know." Arzel (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The difference is a matter of opinion. As collect stated clearly above, all we have are opinions from others. Others that tend to be pretty far on the left for that matter. Furthermore, I think you have a grave misunderstanding of extremists. Neither can we call Libertarians or Tea Party members "Extremists" any more than we can call the progressivs on the left "Extremists" because their placement is based on the opinion of relative position of the author. Hell I don't even consider progressives to be Extremists (which by the way is ill defined when you have a substantial proportion of the population which follow that belief). For anyone to think that the Tea Party or Libertarians are extremists, well that says a lot more about the person making the statement than anything else. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect, here is how I see your reasoning:

First premise: The John Birch Society was neither extremist nor radical right.

Second premise: The Koch brothers are neither extremist nor radical right.

Conclusion: The Koch brothers's beliefs are disimilar from the John Birch Society.

Or:

A is not x,

B is not x,

Therefore B is not A.

Can you either correct my understanding of your syllogism or stop protesting.

TFD (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem addressing straw issues at best, I am concerned about your posts here. Collect (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC) (BTEW, I would appreciate it if you correctly related what I actually state rather than what you seem to think I stated when I did no such thing) `Collect (talk)

I question the utility of this line of discussion. Whether or not JBS, Fred Koch, and the Koch brothers are on the extreme right of the political spectrum is not pertinent to what we need to decide. The fact is that our sources (at least three sources) show that Fred Koch, who was politically to the right and a founding member of the JBS, specifically influenced the brothers to share his political views. The current RfC is to resolve the issue of whether to include, or omit, this fact from this article. The separate question of the "extremism" or "radicalism" of any of these parties is an interesting one, and perhaps merits a separate discussion, but is (unless I'm missing something) unrelated to the RFC and not something that needs to be decided now. My preference is that we stay focused on the matter at hand and, specifically, resolving the RfC. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We mention the father with a bluelink. We do not have consensus for the parenthetical claim about the JBS in this article. Thus WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS agree that the material ought not be in this article. Collect (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The brothers are widely reported to be sympathetic to extreme right-wing causes, enough to funnel millions of dollars into them.

• "Charles and David Koch, the billionaire owners of energy giant Koch Industries, have funneled millions of dollars into anti-Obama organizations. They are the twenty-first century version of their late father, Fred Koch, who funded the paranoid hallucinations of the John Birch Society in the 1950s and 1960s. John Wright, The Obama Haters: Behind the Right-Wing Campaign of Lies, Innuendo & Racism.
• "In NYC, David is known not for his extreme right-wing political views, but for his extreme generosity to some of the city's most revered institutions..." Bill Press, The Obama Hate Machine: The Lies, Distortions, and Personal Attacks on the President—and Who Is Behind Them. This same author quotes David Koch talking about how influential was his father's beliefs in small government and the free market. Bill Press opines that Charles and David Koch perform the functions today that Fred Koch would fill if he was alive.
• "...billionaire David Koch, a major funder of right-wing causes and Libertarian Party candidate for vice president in 1980." Rutgers professor Jay M. Feinman, Un-Making Law: The Conservative Campaign to Roll Back the Common Law.
• "In a widely cited ten-thousand-word article in the New Yorker, for instance, Jane Myers traced how the billionaire libertarians Charles and David Koch, owners of Koch Industries, have donated more than $100 million in recent years to far-right-wing think tanks, organizers of the Tea Party, and other groups whose mission is to promulgate that message." (The message that government is the problem.) Professor Robert H. Frank, The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good.
• "The political views of the Koch brothers have always been on the extreme right, nurtured by their father, Fred Koch, a cofounder of the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society." Journalist Linda McQuaig, professor Neil Brooks, Billionaires' Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality.
• "The Kochs are hardly alone as generous donors to right-wing think tanks, astroturf organizations, political compaigns, and Tea Party activities." Professor Ronald P. Formisano, The Tea Party: A Brief History. Formisano also says there is video proof David Koch attended a Tea Party event in October 2010, standing at a podium.
• "This involvement is led by Right-wing extremist billionaires David and Charles Koch, their Americans for Prosperity organization, and the American Legal Exchange Council that they subsidize." Professor W. D. Wright, The American Three-Party System: Hidden in Plain Sight.
• "The seed money for tort reform came from the same group of extremist multimillionaires whose family foundations nurtured the rest of the ultra-right's agenda, especially David and Charles Koch, Richard Mellon Scaife and Lynde and Harry Bradley." Author Dan Zegart, "The Right Wing's Drive for 'Tort Reform' ", The Nation, volume 279, October 25, 2004.

The second of these sources says that David Koch is not known in NYC "for his extreme right-wing political views" (he is known for large civic donations) but the author is saying that Koch is certainly extremely right-wing. The other authors are more overt in their conclusions that the Koch brothers are right-wing, even far-right- or extreme-right-wing. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

IOW - you support labelling the father as JBS founder because you feel it is directly related to the sons being extremists? Collect (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I support labeling the father as extreme right-wing, a cofounder of JBS, because that is how he is described by our reliable sources. Don't try to guess my feelings and don't conflate your guess about them with what we find in our sources. All I'm doing here is showing what is printed about the Koch brothers' politics. What are you doing here? Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is the OPINION of a bunch of people on the left, try not to forget that. Arzel (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is the carefully considered opinion of scholars, which is a perfectly reliable source for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

John Wright's book is nothing more than personal attacks on pretty much every conservative. Besides anyone can write a book and get it published. This is not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of someone on the left.

Bill Press. Is that the same Bill Press currently on the left-wing Current TV and former chair of the California Democratic party? Yeah, no question of impartiality there </sarc>

Jay Feinman. More opinion from someone on the left. Books like these are simply not RS for anything but the opinion of the author.

Robert Frank. Repeating the Jane Meyer piece. While pretty biased at least has some factual information already in this article.

Linda McQuaig. Canada's Michael Moore. Opinion and clearly biased.

Ronald P. Formisano. Nothing new here. Not seeing the Fred Koch connection or the JBS connection.

W.D. Wright. Appears to be little more than a race baiter.

Dan Zegert. The Nation. Really don't need to say much more than that.

Do you have any mainstream sources talking about this issue. From what I can tell you are easliy able to identify a bunch of people on the left/left-wing that really dislike the Koch Brothers because they donated money to right/right-wing causes. I find it incredibly ironic, btw, that Libertarians (you know those people that are against US involvement in wars, making MJ legal and so forth) are suddenly extremists. What happened to all of the disaffected Ron Paul youth? Apparently know, to the left, if you don't think that the government should run your health care you are an extremist even though Gallup now shows a majority of Americans are against it. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong about health care, Arzel. Many people support Obamacare and are against continuing to allow Americans to die in droves for lack of it, as libertarian policies would sanction. The question of whether a majority of Americans support Obamacare depends on how the survey is worded. I don't recall the Gallup survey you mention, but again, whether a majority support Obamacare depends on the survey design and phrasing. After Obamacare is fully implemented and people get used to it and understand the benefits, it will be widely supported. I only bring up all of these ancillary matters because you chose to do so first, and I am choosing to respond. As for libertarians being extremists, I think most people would consider them to be, since they (at least David Koch, when he ran as a libertarian) want to totally eliminate public funding for K-12 education. In any event, as I already mentioned, this discussion of extremism and radicalism is essentially a distraction, unless I'm missing something, and is irrelevant to resolving the RfC. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Polls clearly show that a majority of Americans are against Obamacare, but it does clearly depend on phrasing. However, none of that is releant to this article. Could both of you strikeout those comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, Arthur Rubin. See the November 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation poll at http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8382-F.pdf, which shows 43% approve and 39% disapprove of Obamacare, and shows an even greater margin in favor of expanding or leaving it in place, versus repealing it. It is largely conservative propaganda that polls consistently show majorities opposing the law. As I mentioned, it comes down to survey design and question wording. This is, of course, off topic, but all three of us (Arzel initially, then me, then you) have now delved into it, and I am not going to allow misinformation to remain unchallenged on this page. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong CD. My statement was about whether the government should run your health care. A new Gallup poll shows that 54% to 44% Americans do not think it is the role of government to provide health care. Arthur, the only reason I bring this up, is because of the continued attacks on the Koch brothers as being extremists for supporting those that don't support government run healthcare. It seems that unless you agree with the left today, you are an extremist, and it is getting a little tiring. Arzel (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It would help your argument so much more if you were able to find sources describing the Koch brothers as politically centrist or middle-of-the-road. Instead, you try to undermine the reliable sources. Please stand aside and let those who do the research write the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

John Wright is a wonderful source! He writes of "Hannity Insanity", UN Ambassador John Bolton is a "right wing extremist", and his sources for the Koch brothers "information"? Think Progress and Jane Mayer. He also has zero understanding of radio syndication operations - reciting a complaint that somehow Limbaugh's program was distributed "for free" to rural radio stations - when anyone who has every worked with any radio station of any sort knows that the program is paid for by the national spots - and the syndicate does not "lose money" by having it broadcast on small stations in rural areas. If we use Wright, etc. I would suggest that the opinions be ascribed to those holding them - and it will be a teensy bit clear where the actual problems are. Bill Press, I suppose,m could be cited for equating a belief in a free market and limited government is "radical right wing" but in so doing we would be drawing a line where more than half the country is "radical right wing" I suppose. In short - using obviously political opinions about the father and translating that opinion by genetics to the sons is absurd. Gee whiz - with sources like these, who needs facts? Collect (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the JBS was an extreme or radical organization? If not, why should we not mention Fred Koch's connection to it? TFD (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is irrelevant entirely. I would point out that I was the one who made this edit to the JBS article [5]. And that you insisted we use Wikipedia's voice to label it [6]. I would point out that for "Unite Against Fascism" I suggested a parallel construction citing opinions of RS sources as opinion: [7], amnd that you opposed any such listing of opinions at all: [8] with a claim that if a memebr of the Conservative Party is a member that the organisation can not be "left wing" at all. [9] shows your plaint that I dared to use a noticeboard on the issue. And your disdain for The Times use of the term by saying The comparison with EDL is useful. The term "far right" has a clear meaning and we can find sources that explain what it means and why the EDL is "far right". The term "left-wing" has a clear meaning as well, and we can find no sources that explain why UAF is left-wing. Xenophobic nationalism combined with violence, the raison d-etre of the EDL is by definition far right. Opposition to fascism is not by definition left-wing. TFD (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Which is fairly clear. The Times is not RS for saying it called a group "left wing" while use of a political group to label the JBS in Wikipedia's voice is proper <g>. And note that I did not object to citing opinion as opinion, in fact I wrote it clearly, - which has been my consistent position for a very long time. Are you done yet? Collect (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am consistent on the types of sources required to describe the political orientation of any group. You on the other hand reject even the most sterling academic sources when you don't like them then Google search for sources to label groups you dislike as left-wing. For example, you consistently reject peer-reviewed academic articles that call the British National Party and the English Defence League as far right, then try to label anyone who disagrees with their policies as left-wing. Here is an example where your approach leads to absurdity. You consistently argue that the JBS is neither radical nor extreme, yet refuse to allow mention that Fred Koch was a Bircher because it makes him look extreme. Let's just try to be neutral encyclopedians, not spin doctors. TFD (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if you dealt with what I post instead of making errant claims as to what I post. You will not find any case where I support using Wikipedia's voice to call the UAF, for example, "left wing." I am actually weary of seeing misstatements as to what my positions are on noticeboards and talk pages. Since I never "argued" as you assert that I "know" what the JBS position on the political spectrum is, I find this conversation is of exceptionally limited value. I am glad to discuss what I do state, but discussing what I never said is a tad tough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have never edited on British National Party. Ever. Period. I have never edited on the talk page for that article. Never, ever. My edit on English Defence League is shown at [10] because the source did not support the claim made for it. Wikipedia does not like using sources to support what they do not say. I also pointed out that "sabotagetimes.com" does not meet WP:RS. I take it you feel http://www.sabotagetimes.com/life/modern-britain-multicultural-haven-or-racist-sewer is a peer-reviewed journal as that is what you claim here? Your claims are utterly and incomprehensibly false here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

List of sources saying the Koch brothers are not right-wing

I don't know of any reliable sources that contradict the widely held idea that the Koch brothers are at least sympathetic to the far right wing, so I will allow others to supply such sources if they can locate them. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

When you google "Koch Brothers" and "moderate" you are likely to come up with articles such as:

The death of the Kansas moderate? - Washington Post

www.washingtonpost.com/.../bd27ddd8-e163-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c...

Aug 8, 2012 – Conservatives defeated seven moderate Republican lawmakers in party ... backed by the billionaire libertarian :Koch brothers — Americans for ... --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this request is very pertinent to this RFC. Even if we could provide such sources we'd still be disputing whether to include Fred's involvement in JBS. Jojalozzo 00:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources that link the brothers to JBS

My objection to including Fred's JBS involvement is based on my view that it's tangential to the brothers' political activity and it's background. That Fred was anti-communist seems relevant since the brothers are anti-communist and anti-socialist but a) I am seeing no sources that say the brothers had anything to do with JBS and b) we have many sources that say Fred was anti-communist without needing to bring in his involvement with JBS. Unless we have sources that directly link the brothers to JBS and don't just mention them in the same sentence with their father's membership, I see no reason for mentioning JBS. Jojalozzo 00:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The article will be a stronger piece if Fred's JBS involvement is mentioned, as in the original proposed language above. Fred's founding of JBS was his signature political activity. This has absolutely nothing to do with any wish to denigrate the brothers or paint them as JBS members. It's about producing the best possible quality article. The natural thing to do, to provide context for the brothers, is to mention that they came from a family that was politically involved in right-wing causes, as evidenced by Fred's cofounding of JBS, and that Fred imparted his right-wing, limited-government, anti-communist worldview to the brothers. This is the type of service that we owe to our readers. What we don't owe our readers is to hide the ball for dubious reasons. I note that the other source material regarding the brothers generally takes this tack--mentioning not only Fred and his influence on the brothers, but his JBS involvement. Why would these other materials, written by professional journalists and scholars, mention JBS unless it was something of interest when discussing Fred and his influence on the brothers? Our article should follow suit. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that "other source material" (other than what?) that mentions JBS and the brothers together are generally coming from an opposing political point of view and using the JBS reputation for extremism to reinforce their opposition, not to "serve their readers". Do we have sources sympathetic to the brothers' causes that also conflate them with JBS? Are there sources that objectively explain what Fred's involvement with JBS meant to the brothers? We will not produce a high quality article by resorting to innuendo, simply mentioning JBS and the brothers in the same sentence, as do the sources you would have us mimic. Why shouldn't we emulate reliable journalistic and scholarly sources that describe the Koch brothers political influences without mentioning JBS?

Jojalozzo 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your source, Family Wars, which has a 4 page section on the Koch brothers, says in the first paragraph, p. 38, "His Russian experience helped shape his political views: to be strongly opposed to communist ideology, values that are perpetuated to this day by his sons who support libertarian political causes." So even a brief section about the economic, rather than political, activities of the Koch brothers finds it necessary to mention the father's politics and say that they influenced the sons. BTW all serious academic and journalistic writing about the JBS and similar organizations "are generally coming from an opposing political point of view". TFD (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. My point is that this author, who is not particularly sympathetic, saw no need to bring JBS into the discussion of the father's politics. Jojalozzo 20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of authors discussed on this talk page, and ones that are or were cited in the article, connect the Koch brothers to the politics of their father, the politics being the sort of far right-wing ideas that Fred Koch put forward within the context of JBS. The Koch brothers have been described as modern-day political extensions of their father. The Koch Family Foundation has been grouped with other right-wing politically active organizations such as JBS. Today, the JBS is still active in right-wing politics, but we can note that the Koch brothers are not and have never been associated with them. However, many of our reliable sources tells the reader of Fred Koch's connection to JBS within the context of describing the Koch brothers' politics, so who are we to try and hide from the issue? Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If we had sources that explained how JBS related to the son's politics I'd have no problem with this request. However, I have not seen one that does more than mention the two in the same sentence. For us to perpetuate such irresponsible tactics is no service to our readers and does not improve the quality of the article. Since none of the sources explain the relationship of JBS to the son's political upbringing, and it is synthesis and undue for us to include that information without such an explanation, we should leave it out. Without an explanation of the connection, there is no issue to hide. Jojalozzo 22:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We've stated it over and over because the sources state it over and over: the connection is Fred Koch himself. He is the foundation both of the JBS and of his kids. The sons themselves say this; I've already quoted a source. The fact that the sons' views have evolved is something that needs separate explanation; it doesn't justify suppression/hiding of the extent of the father's conservatism, which is what this ends up being about. The article needs to stand alone to the extent that it needs to say, not just that they were raised by a conservative father, but that they were taught their conservatism by a father who is such a radical right figure that he helped found the JBS. There is no source anyone has found (and again, I have to raise the complaint that the includers are having to do all the research) that says this view is incorrect; the most adverse sources to this merely fail to spell out all the details. Simply linking back to Fred isn't enough, because it invites people to not click through and therefore miss what so many sources think is a salient detail; whatever the intent, the effect is a bias in favor of minimizing the connection between the radical right and the libertarians which the Koch brothers embody. Even the libertarian Doherty acknowledges that link, so there's no possible distortion brought about by spelling it out. We do have sources that "do more than mention the two in the same sentence," but they are being rejected out of a distaste for the authors, or apparently in the case of Doherty because I am the only one who could be bothered to read the whole passage. Look, I repeat my demand for some contrary sources. As far as I can tell, in this mass of repetition and complaint there is not one source presented which says that the sons adopted their views independently of their father or in negative reaction to him. For that matter, I don't see where the exclusion side here has presented any source, so I'm forced to presume at this point that the only source they have is their own opinions and prejudices on the matter. If you can't come up with some source for the picture you're trying to have the article paint, you really don't a leg to stand on.

As you just stated, the sources state that THE FATHER has a connection, and none connect the actual subject of the article the SONS, hence WP:SYN and hence WP:COATRACK and hence no reason to include except for BLATANT POV push. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The WP:TRUTH shall set you free. As has been stated numerous times, this article is NOT about Fred. That you have a bunch of people on the left trying to tie the Brothers to the JBS because of the father is meaningless. You are apparently afraid that by not making this connection for the reader that they will miss what YOU think is an extremely important aspect that you and the left think that the brothers are by extension through their father a part of the JBS. The most netural presentation is to simply not make the implication. Readers are very capable of clicking on the father to lear about him in more depth. The fact that a reader was able to make it to this page should be enough evidence that they are capable of making the very next step. Arzel (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

RedPen, it's not MY synthesis, or that of any other editor, because we are bloody well copying it directly from the sources!!! And Arzel, speaking of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I've been over and over the point that Doherty is a libertarian, so he cannot possibly be considered a hostile left wing source! How many times do I have to repeat that? And you are simply ignoring the point I just made: that in expunging the connection from this article, you are forcing them to click through to the father in order to find out what a dozen or so sources think is a salient point. Perhaps you are being a wiki-pedant about this, but I'm more inclined to believe, from the fervor with which it is felt necessary to keep the JBS away from the sons, that you want to hide the connection there so that people don't click the link and therefore don't discover exactly how conservative the sons' past actually is. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No one has said that the sources do not say that papa was founder of JBS. No one. What we are saying is that _our_ article is _about the brother's contributions_, and not about papa and his wing nut inventions. You have yet to provide a source that actually connects _the subject of this article_, the brother's contributions, with papa's affiliation to any organization. They are not writing an encyclopedia article about the brother's contributions, they have other goals and reasons and are writing in different formats. If papa's connection to an organization was important to the subject of this article, you would be able to find reliable sources saying: The brothers are inspired by their father's support of politically motivated organizations such as his founding of the JBS. but they are NOT saying that. They are simply stating that papa founded JBS and that is not relevant to the subject of this article in any way at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You are expecting that there will be sources that show what motivates someone to act a particular way? Unless it is a quote (and even the veracity of such a quote could be suspect), you do not know what motivates an individual to behave in a particular fashion. We, as reporters of fact, and remember folks, that is what wikipedia is supposed to do, cannot possibly be expected to document what influenced their behavior. All we can do is document the circumstances of their upbringing. Their father was part of the creation of the JBS. Unless proven otherwise, they grew up around their father, hearing the philosophy that inspired him to create that organization not just on one occasion but essentially daily, their entire lives with him. He obviously left them his fortune, they were not estranged. So we cannot state factually that they were influenced by his participation in the JBS. That statement is not proposed to be in the article. We simply state the fact that founding and funding the JBS was one of the (2 most) notable accomplishments of their father's life the other being that he built Koch Industries and made a lot of money by doing so). With that information, our readers might see the obvious parallel in their political activities, or like some on this talk section, not see it. We have the responsibility to report facts, not to hide them. Trackinfo (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And thank you again for showing EXACTLY how the inclusion is a complete violation of WP:SYN- placing items in such an order to present or imply a connection or causal effect that is not directly stated in any of the individual sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

RedPen, the preferred version of the includers does not say that the JBS inspired the Koch sons; nor is there an ambiguity in the proposed text in which such an interpretation can be found. We've got plenty of sources which say that the father's radical politics led to his participation in the JBS founding and helped form the political outlook of his sons; there's no interpretation involved in us reporting that. However, your language here does signify interpretation, for instance when you say the proposed text "implies" a connection. Well, it doesn't imply it; it states, with absolute accuracy, what that connection is. The only argument that you might have left which might be valid at this point is that it isn't true, and the only way you are going to be able to make a valid and acceptable case for such a statement is to find some new, better sources that say outright that it isn't true. Right now the best you can do is claim that it can be misinterpreted, which I think is only true insofar as many people are unable to follow an argument anyway; but beyond that, it seems to me that you're trying to reword the passage specifically to hide the extent of the father's conservative politics, and thus exclude whatever roots the sons' politics may have there. We have source after source which seems to think that this connection is important and that the father's politics were formative, so none of the arguments you are making here are compatible with the sources.

Once again, the challenge remains the same: source a different narrative, and you can have it. Right now you're trying to conceal the truth, at least as the sources reveal it. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a "narrative" to mention Fred's JBS involvement and the brothers in the same sentence. A true narrative would explain what the connection is. None of the sources do that and I see no reason why we should perpetuate the myth of that unexplained connection. Jojalozzo 20:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

@Mangoe: complete hogwash. there are gazillions of things in the sources that we dont include here because they are not relevant to the subject of this article. it is the burden of those wishing to include material to back up the inclusion with sources that show that particular piece of information is somehow relevant to this article. The only reason would be if one of the sources specifically makes such a link - they don't. we cannot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you keep harping on the phrase "in the same sentence" shows that you aren't even reading the sources. The link is there and it is made all the time, and there is no doubt that the sources feel it is extremely relevant, so your claim of coatracking is false and tendentious. Therefore I go with the sources. The only argument that attempts to override the sources' judgement is the attack on them as showing left wing bias; but since the Doherty book isn't from the left wing, that argument doesn't hold water.

And your attempt to stand on process doesn't wash. You are trying to suppress an accurate and abundantly sourced statement which the sources agree is entirely relevant; you're trying to censor the article. Your side has as much as admitted that anyone presented with the facts would draw the obvious conclusion that there is some connection between JBS politics and the sons' politics, so the problem is above all neutrality, which is a more primary policy. The burden is on you to come up with contrary sources to justify an article which presents the point of view that the father's JBS involvement is irrelevant; you need a source which can present the fact of the paternal connection and also argue that it is irrelevant. I haven't found any such source, and indeed the best conservative activist response has been the same inadequate response I'm seeing here, of ridiculing the authors of a few of the sources. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

more than hogwash, fucking nonsense. you are claiming that we are making arguments that we are not and you are not addressing the very specific and policy based reasoning. Show where the sources explicitly connect papa's JBS to the boys politicking. If you dont have a reliable source that does so, we cannot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You've been pointed to them, I'm done here, see you at the next stage of dispute resolution. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

@Mangoe: I don't know of any sources that say the father's JBS founding is relevant to the brothers' politics. That's what the subsection is about. What sources do you mean? Jojalozzo 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are not going to look at the sources being discussed here then you should back out of the discussion. I wrote earlier: "Try Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks who wrote, 'the political views of the Koch brothers have always been on the extreme right, nurtured by their father, Fred Koch, a cofounder of the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society' (Billionaires' Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality, Beacon Press, 2012, ISBN 0807003409, co-written by journalist Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, the director of the Graduate Program in Taxation at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto." There's also Peter Montgomery who I brought forward already, the professor who wrote the chapter "The Tea Party and the Religious Right Movements: Frenemies with Benefits" with the scholarly peer-reviewed book Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party. Montgomery says on pages 247–248 how the Birchers are still active today, tracing the JBS from Fred Koch to his son David Koch who continues the legacy of right-wing political activism. I wrote on November 19: "In the same book, historian Charles Postel is the author of a chapter called 'The Tea Party in Historical Perspective: A Conservative Response to a Crisis of Political Economy'. Postel writes that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, 'aggressively pursue the conservative vision of their father, who was a founding member of the John Birch Society.'" TFD cited the book, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism which discusses Koch brothers on page 102: "They also happen to be sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, 'known for its highly skeptical view of governance and for spreading fears of a Communist takeover'—the same sort of views the Koch sons are pushing today." Mangoe cited Brian Doherty (journalist) who wrote, "Fred Koch raised his four boys in the catechism. 'He was constantly speaking to us children about what was wrong with government and government policy,' remembers David Koch. 'It's something I grew up with—a fundamental point of view that big government was bad, and imposition of government controls on our lives and economic fortunes was not good.'" (Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. New York: PublicAffairs. pp. 406-408.) ChicagoDilettante brought forward the Village Voice article by Lisa Rab: "Fred Koch became a founding member of the hard-right John Birch Society and imbued all of his sons with a strong distaste for government." If you don't want to read these books and articles then stop wasting people's time. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Linda McQuaig "Canada's Michael Moore" is not a suitable source for a BLP claim like that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

McQuaig's co-author is a scholar. McQuaig herself is a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines just as is Michael Moore. We can use McQuaig alone per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV but combined with a scholarly co-author she is reliable as fact. I can't help but notice you could only pick a nit with one of these multiple sources... Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This Michael Moore thing is a red herring. First, the National Post Newspaper, which called Linda McQuaig "Canada's Michael Moore," was founded by Conrad Black in order "to provide a voice for Canadian conservatives and to combat what he considered to be a liberal bias in Canadian newspapers" (per the Wikipedia article on the National Post). Black, of course, has endorsed numerous right-wing causes. Basically, the paper is biased against anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan, so the fact that it called McQuaig "Canada's Michael Moore" isn't relevant. Beyond this, I'm not sure anyone has shown that Michael Moore, even, would be so unreliable a source that we couldn't use him. Of course, we're talking about McQuaig, not Moore. All of this was discussed above in a previous section, though I can understand how editors might not realize it, given how disorganized this talk page discussion has become. It's hard to tell where the main thread is. Finally, as others have mentioned, McQuaig's coauthor, Brooks, is an eminent legal scholar at one of Canada's top law schools, and I don't see how anyone could accuse him of being some kind of a journalistic hack. In sum, there is nothing I'm aware of that makes the McQuaig and Brooks source unreliable or unusable. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the sources

From my perspective those of us in favor of inclusion are not thinking critically about most of the sources put forward to as linking the brothers' politics to JBS. Here is my source by source analysis:

• Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks: 'the political views of the Koch brothers have always been on the extreme right, nurtured by their father, Fred Koch, a cofounder of the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society'

This is a great example of innuendo, simply putting the two facts together and hoping the reader will draw a connection. This clearly fails. If we give them the benefit of the doubt, we could say they're using JBS to say something about Fred's political views and not trying to connect JBS to the sons but that makes this a poor source for our purposes since it doesn't explain the father/sons link. I think we'd do better to explain how Fred's politics really shows up in the sons' activities and to do that there's no need to bring JBS into it.

• Peter Montgomery (as described by Binksternet): Montgomery says on pages 247-248 how the Birchers are still active today, tracing the JBS from Fred Koch to his son David Koch who continues the legacy of right-wing political activism.

I could go with a good summary of this if the connections are really made as you claim. However, here is the quote: "Among the founders of the John Birch Society was Fred Koch, whose son David is now a major funder of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, one of the 'Astroturf' groups that has worked to organize Tea Partiers into an effective political force." How can we consider this tracing the legacy of right-wing political activism? This is basically the same as McQuaig and Brook's approach, just wordier.

• Charles Postel: the Koch brothers, Charles and David, 'aggressively pursue the conservative vision of their father, who was a founding member of the John Birch Society.'

Another fail, lacking any explanation.

• The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism: "They also happen to be sons of Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, 'known for its highly skeptical view of governance and for spreading fears of a Communist takeover' - the same sort of views the Koch sons are pushing today."

This connects the ideologies, but the operant phrase is "sort of". This practically says there is no direct connection, just sort of a connection!

• Brian Doherty: "Fred Koch raised his four boys in the catechism. 'He was constantly speaking to us children about what was wrong with government and government policy,' remembers David Koch. 'It's something I grew up with - a fundamental point of view that big government was bad, and imposition of government controls on our lives and economic fortunes was not good.'"

I like this one. It really connects the ideology of the father to the sons. It's the kind of approach I can support but it doesn't further the inclusionist position since it does not mention JBS.

• Lisa Rab: "Fred Koch became a founding member of the hard-right John Birch Society and imbued all of his sons with a strong distaste for government."

Again, no real connection. Another fail.

So we have only one good source, but it doesn't mention JBS attempt to connect JBS and the brothers. Thus my position that we lay out the father/sons connection much as Doherty does. Jojalozzo 03:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, you tried and failed to defame the reliable sources. The better path for your obstructionist effort here would be for you to show that other high-quality sources have said that the Koch brothers are in no way connected to the extreme right-wing conservatism of their father. Ach, there are no such sources! Gee whiz, what to do? Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• False. Jojalozzo doesn't "defame" anybody; he simply points out that the sources do not support your position. Your counter-argument is a straw man. Belchfire-TALK 08:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This response verges on ad hominem which I do not appreciate (and usually signals a weak position). I am not trying to defame the sources (so your statement that I failed to do it is meaningless), just showing how they fail to support inclusion of the mythical JBS connection and I think I have done that. Jojalozzo 04:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Twice now on this talk page you've reacted with an ad hominem complaint. In both cases your arguments were said to be insufficient to support your position. I don't think that is an ad hominem attack; rather, it is a statement about your weak position. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confused about this. The first time I was responding to a post by an editor who opposed inclusion of the JBS content and not in response to anything I posted. Please explain what you see as weaknesses in my analysis, if possible without falling back on the reliability of the sources, since I am not challenging that, just the suitability of those reliable sources as support for connecting JBS and the brothers' politics. Jojalozzo 13:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote five days ago the first time this source was brought up: "After spelling out Fred Koch's disillusionment with the Soviets and his JBS participation', Doherty writes the following." This is exactly why I keep saying that you have to actually read the sources. Doherty does talk about Fred and the Birchers, and I said so, and you could follow the link I gave and see that for yourself. Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong as to the content of Doherty. I did follow the link, and JBS is incidental, at best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure Doherty talks about Fred and the Birchers but it's in the paragraph before David's pithy and informative quote. Doherty makes no attempt to connect JBS to the sons. [Note: I fixed the misstatement at the end of my post above.]Jojalozzo 04:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Doherty certainly does connect it all together, using an advanced rhetorical technique called "narrative". He makes the same connection everyone else makes: Fred Koch. We have, of course, been over that. We've also been over the implicit claim that the text has to be phrased a particular way in order to be taken seriously; it's not a reasonable claim, and I will continue to read the text the way normal people read it. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And you are still wrong. Policy DOES state that content must be phrased in a particular way WP:V / WP:OR. You may be claiming a connection in a "advanced" method, but even then it fails. "to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. " and " Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" and "In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.". If it requires understanding "advanced techniques" we cannot use it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Red Pen, at the risk of speaking for Mangoe, the reference to an "advanced rhetorical technique called 'narrative'" was meant facetiously or sarcastically. Mangoe is not actually suggesting that anything "advanced" is requied to use Doherty as a source for the connection, but that narrative, and not merely a direct quote, support the connection. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The sarcasm is obvious, and also quite instructive. Mangoe admitted openly that he is reading something into his sources that simply isn't there. It was quite helpful of him to to say it out loud as he did. Belchfire-TALK 21:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

All I "admit" to is adequate reading comprehension. Where I was taught English, it was considered the done thing to use multiple sentences and clauses, and to break the text up with paragraphs. Anyone who can read at even a decent high school level, or really anything past grammar school, can see that Doherty has the very simple story of Fred rejecting the Soviets, developing a radical right ideology which is embodied in his assistance in founding of the JBS, and raising his sons in the same ideology, who in turn express their own conservative outlook. If that's not what you see in the passage, then you're misreading it or misconstruing it. Mangoe (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your competency appears to fall short when it comes to recognizing unacceptable original research.

Nobody contests that Fred is tied to JBS. Nobody contests that Fred influenced his sons. But you're trying to tie the sons to JBS, and without better sourcing, that's a bridge too far. Belchfire-TALK 04:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've said several times already that the connection is Fred himself, and that of course is what all these sources say too. I can only assume that your appeal to WP:OR arises out of your inability to refute Doherty's analysis, so you have to resort to saying that he didn't actually say it by setting the sentences one away from another and asserting that they cannot be read as a single text. That deconstruction is illegitimate and tendentious. Mangoe (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's already been pointed out to you why Doherty doesn't further your case. If you don't have anything new, then all you're doing is trying to make a false postulate true be incessantly repeating it. Belchfire-TALK 05:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The argument presented was incorrect, and it's still incorrect. Repetition is being resorted to at this point because, I gather, we on the inclusion side see the sources as presenting a coherent consensus on the point. When I look at them as a whole, the message I get is that they all, regardless of political position, read the same story, which story I've presented here over and over. That story is that the sons are tainted by the JBS association precisely because their father so tainted them—that is, if "taint" is how you see it. There is a huge neutrality issue here, because it seems to me that the only reason you're trying to keep the truth out of this article is that you're afraid that readers will draw the same conclusion from it that all these various sources draw; you're trying to hide the connection between the Cato libertarians and the old radical right which is widely noted and remarked upon.

If you want to present a different theory, find a source for it. Doherty by himself is enough to report the straight facts, and he is backed up by many others. If you want to say the facts are misleading, you need a source which even argues that, much less tries to demonstrate it. Your constant arguments against Doherty's arguments (much less your character assassination dismissals of the others) are the original research here: I don't need to refute your claim that he doesn't make his case. You need to find someone else, a reliable source, who will make that refutation on your behalf, or at very least you need to find someone who is as dismissive as you are. That's why I keep insisting that you need to do some research yourself: your personal distaste for the arguments made isn't good enough, especially since we can find plenty of people who don't think your reading holds water. And that holds for the rest of the exclusion crowd. We've been too soft on not dismissing your argumentative evaluations of the sources from the start: you're pushing a contrary theory, and you need to source it. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

yes, once again you have described EXACTLY WHY the sources brought forth so far CANNOT be used. There has been no evidence as to why they are of any import to the subject of THIS article, other than the apparent attempt to further taint the boys with papas activities. this article is not The Koch's are all evil. their actions fully speak to that on their own without Wikipedia sliding to guilt by association to do that for them. in fact, slathering on the poor assumptions and dirty implications has the effect of giving Wikipedia all the credibility of Michelle Bachmannn - and that is not where we need to go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have no problem with inclusion if we had sources that actually said something along the lines of "the Cato libertarians are connected to the John Birch Society" but there are none so far. All we have is one man was involved in the JBS and his sons were involved in the Cato Institute. That's not a narrative and it's not saying there's a connection. Without a source saying there is a connection it's OR. We do have a source (Doherty) that says what you appear to want to say "there is a connection between the Cato libertarians and the old radical right". Let's go with that. Jojalozzo 16:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, we affirmatively do have sources saying there's a connection, in particular that Fred imparted his ideology to the brothers. The (at least) three sources that say this are McQuaig & Norris, Doherty, and Rab. With respect to each of these sources, you and the other excluders have found reasons to denigrate the source. It seems that your agenda is to keep the connection out of the article, and that you'll use whatever reason you can find to do so. The reality is that this information should be brought to the light of day. It's clearly accurate, yet you want to exclude it because, you assert, it's not relevant. I say that if there's any reasonable argument that it is relevant (and clearly there is), then it's not our job to hide the information, but rather to include it in the article so the readers can be informed. I think, by the way, that it's self evident that--with the Koch brothers' politics being so important in national politics given the brothers' deep pockets and political activism--our readers will be interested in learning that the brothers originally had their political views imparted to them by their father, who was actively involved in the radical right (or far right, or whatever you want to call it) in an earlier era. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Any crusade to make the actions of the Koch bothers appear more evil than they already are by smearing them with the dirt of the father is categorically unacceptable. The sources do not do say what you say they do, in the manner that is required by policy.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please reread my comment. It's not a smear campaign against the brothers--unless you consider it a smear to state a fact, supported by at least three sources, which is relevant to the article. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh give me a break, TheRedPenOfDoom. Anybody with basic reading comprehension will determine from the source books that the Koch brothers were influenced by their father to become the right-wing activists they are today. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with such a statement, "the Koch brothers were influenced by their father to become the right-wing activists they are today", but if that's all we need to say there's no need to mention JBS. Jojalozzo 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I don't think anybody arguing against inclusion of JBS has argued (in this discussion) against mentioning the father's influence. The objection is to making leaps of "narrative" that don't exist in any sources. Belchfire-TALK 17:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have not been specific about that in all of my posts here, as the section heading is about connection to JBS and so I many not have been as clear about that as I should have been. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

One way around our impasse might be to include the JBS "connection" by attributing it to the brothers' critics.

The phrase "Koch brothers" generally refers to the sons of Fred C. Koch. Fred Koch imparted his right-wing views to his sons, and their conservatism was expressed from an early age. Critics of the brothers' political activity attempt to draw a connection betweenconnect the brothers' ideology and the John Birch Society, a radical right advocacy group which their father helped found in the 1950s. Fred Koch's most politically active sons are Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, who bought out their brothers Frederick and Bill from Koch Industries in 1983.

Thus we avoid perpetuating the sloppy writing/thinking of their critics and the readers can consider the strength of the connection for themselves. There may still be a SYNTH argument against this (and perhaps we should pare down the source lists) but I think most of the teeth of this dispute would be gone. Jojalozzo 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not acceptable, because there's no evidence that anyone besides a bunch of editors here thinks that they are untainted. Also, Doherty isn't a critic. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't include Doherty either (he is a source only for the second sentence) nor do I think he attempts to make the connection between JBS and the brothers. He mentions JBS only to say something about the father, not about the brothers. Jojalozzo 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, it appears you believe the brothers are tainted and want Wikipedia to say that as a fact (though only by implication) rather than opinion expressed in sources. This isn't the most obvious statement of a POV but it is helpful to have it expressed. Jojalozzo 17:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Untainted"??? So Mangoe, you're saying that they are "tainted"? I think you've just disqualified yourself from maintaining any pretense of neutrality or willingness to faithfully present sources.

You may find this helpful: WP:BUTITSTRUE Belchfire-TALK 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I keep using the word "tainted" is because it's part of the rationale for excluding the JBS. They are widely recognized, rightly or wrongly, as right wing nutcases; therefore it's unsurprising that the information that the sons were taught their politics by one of the founders the group (which is exactly what Doherty says, using quotes from one of the sons) is felt to be damaging to them. But so what? If the truth is damaging, what's that to us? We aren't here to protect their reputations by tucking the truth away where people might not see it. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal, on the grounds that it gratuitously gives undue weight to JBS for which there is no sourcing. Belchfire-TALK 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

convenience reference list

added reflist-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To save us an edit war over the location of the remark

Back in this edit Jojalozzo asserted that The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism meant that the views of the sons were not really all that like those of the father, but only "sort of" like them. This is a misrepresentation. "Sort" in the quoted sentence is clearly a synonym for "type" or "kind", not an indication of rough approximation. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs

The only "great wrong" I see being "righted" here is that someone might read the facts and draw conclusions which the anti-inclusionists find unacceptable. We'll go around this forever, it seems, until some administrator has mercy on us and closes the RFC, but the facts are what they are, and the consensus of the sources is what it is. Nobody has ever presented a source which takes the same facts and presents a different interpretation, so the version the sources present is what goes in the article. The distaste of a bunch of editors for this is a rich blend of non-neutrality and original research.

There's no coatracking going on here. The sources draw the connection, so the connection stays. The argument that the sources are all hostile is invalid to begin with, being biased and incorrect; indeed, it is possible that there is such a preponderance of hostile sources because hostility is a reasonable reaction from the facts. The argument that the sources don't argue the connection is painfully tendentious and cannot be supported by an honest and literate reading. The resistance to providing sources with a contrary position is evidence of bad-faith discussion: I've seen no sign of any such source, and I see no reason to believe that there is any such source, but I'd be willing to evaluate such a source if it were presented. But the opposition to inclusion is banking on one policy to allow their own intransigence in the argument to allow a gross violation of the other core policies.

I don't normally do much editing in political subjects, and I'm not a member of any political wikiproject. I'm not coming into this with a political commitment, but the research I've put into this may change my mind on that. It's pretty clear that everyone on the anti-inclusion side approaches this with very strong ideological commitments, and I see a battlefield mentality over making sure that a couple of major conservative figures get protected from criticism which, the research shows, is probably quite justly earned. I would not have made the connection between the radical right and the libertarians if weeks of being made to go over this by the conservatism side of the conflict hadn't rubbed my nose in it. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to accept your claim that EVERYONE ELSE has some political reason for non-inclusion when you make statements like this (referring to the JBS)They are widely recognized, rightly or wrongly, as right wing nutcases. This goes back to my initial problem with this entire discussion. How the JBS is viewed today has absolutely nothing to do with how they were viewed when Fred supposedly imprinted the JBS view into his kids. The views of the JBS have changed over the years since they were created, yet many editors want to tag the Brothers with the current incarnation of the JBS because his father helped start the group. Arzel (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, a simple Google News search will show that the Department of Justice was talking about investigating the JBS back in 1961. That's only three years after its founding. I'm old enough, barely, to remember the days in the sixties when it was a byword for the extreme right. Worrying about its reputation as it is now is beside the point. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mangoe, for once again voicing reason here at this little Mad Hatter's get-together. The bit about Fred Koch/JBS/the sons' right-wing upbringing and influence remains unopposed by any sources. The only conclusion here must be a fine trouting for the obstructionist editors. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy on OR, SYNTH and UNDUE does not support inclusion whatever our personal beliefs about the subject. Claiming conservative bias in all those who oppose inclusion is baseless and tenditious and, as earlier with the "taint" statement, reveals ideological POV.Jojalozzo 04:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite appropriate to mention the "conservative" ideology of the father when discussing the sons (btw sons are by definition offspring of the father) when the sons are also "conservative" and 100% of sources mention this. Why should we hide it? TFD (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

the issue under contestation is the attempt to bring the JBS into this article. No one has provided a source that says papa's JBS connection has any influence on the boy's current evil deeds and there is no reason for Wikipedia to do so either. the evilness of the boy's current political activities is quite explicit and obvious in and of itself without any lame "evilness by association" of dredging up of slime from papa's past "are you now or have you ever been the child of someone associated with the John Birch Society?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Mentioning the father's JBS involvement is an attempt to provide context to the brothers' political activities. They were nurtured in a pro-JBS environment, by a father who founded the JBS and imparted is rightwing views to them. The natural thing to do is to point out that the father was rightwing and a founder of JBS and that he imparted his political philosophy to the brothers. I note that there is no question about accuracy here, only relevance, even (I believe) on the part of the excluders. As I have said many times before, it's best to bring all of the clearly-accurate information to the readers. Perhaps it will serve as a starting point for further inquiry on the part of some reader of the article and, thus, we'll be acting as responsible editors and doing the public a service. I would like to stress that, at least for me, it has nothing to do with denigrating the brothers; it's just a matter of bringing this relevant, interesting information to light (as the other non-Wikipedia authors have done) rather than hiding the ball. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"are you now or have you ever been the child of someone associated with the John Birch Society?" is not "context" it is WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider being the son of a JBS member to be nefarious, if that's what you are implying, nor do I support discriminating against sons of JBS members or destroying their reputation. (For that matter, I don't support discriminating against actual JBS members.) Therefore, please don't compare me, even implicitly, to Senator McCarthy, who did discriminate against and ruin people because of actual or alleged ties to the Communist Party. Rather, all I'm saying is what I stated about adding context and creating an article that is richer, contextually-deeper, and provides information for our readers, who can make whatever they want out of it. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why you call the JBS slime. They were an important part of the US conservative movement, including the 1964 Goldwater and 1966 Reagan campaigns. Welch was a major investor in the National Review. Willi Schlamm, a founder of the National Review, and Morrie Ryskind were prominent members. The JBS was recently a sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which the Koch brothers also fund. I realize that their reputation suffered following Welch's claims about Eisenhower, but then Pat Robertson and others have held similar views. TFD (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

and then we must include content about Morrie and Willi in this article too! just that information is just as relevant as papa's involvement to this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the answer, from David Koch's lips no less (as Doherty quotes him) is "Yes, and he made sure I was indoctrinated in the group's precepts," how can there possibly be any problem? It isn't our synthesis; it's Doherty's well-documented analysis, which everyone else either agrees with or does not care to dispute. The only disputation is coming from you and other editors. The Koch sons themselves not only don't dispute the connection, they are the source for saying that it's relevant.

Your analogy here is trying to push the line that there is no connection between their father's politics and that of the sons. The sources say you're wrong, so you attack them with everything from ad hominems to simply denying that they say what they manifestly do say. Somewhere along the line you either need to give up the quest to make the article follow your interpretation, our you need to come up with a source which actually says that the connection is irrelevant in spite of the fact that so many analysts say otherwise. Your attempt to take the connection out of the sources and stuff it ours is just not a legitimate reading of the sources, and that's all there is to it. I don't care whether you can concoct some sort of analogy to McCarthyism; and after all, it turned out in the end that Alger Hiss was just as guilty as Whitaker Chambers made him out to be.

I don't care if you don't think Doherty or any of the other sources doesn't make his point. That's just WP:OR on your part, and even ignoring the Wikipedia rules against that, your argument is too weak to be taken seriously. But it's still your analysis that you are pushing. I say, for the umpteenth time now: substantiate that analysis with sources, and I will at least consider it. Right now all I get from you is your bias against the possibility that the connection is significant and formative. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR is not allowed in the content we put into the actual articles, but as editors determining what to put into articles, we are absolutely allowed to analyze the sources and utilize judgement to evaluate content. we do not mechanically add everything just because it appears in a reliable source. I was "indoctrinated" by my parents and the church they when to when I was a child, but that does not mean that I share that view now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case your BLP would say you had a religious upbringing but later left the church. TFD (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

and thats why you are wrong, because I havent left the church. see what happens when you make assumptions and claims that are not actually in the source material?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually we do simply repeat the sources, unless there is some reason to contest what the sources say. I've rejected plenty of sources over the years when I had to resolve obvious contradictions or when there was no real question that the source could not be trusted. The problem with your line here is that there isn't a good reason to contest the sources. We keep coming back to the same problem that you and the other anti-inclusionists identify: it might not reflect well on them. The fact is that what the sources all say is that there is a pattern of development from the JBS-ish doctrines of the father to the libertarian doctrines of the sons; the possibility that they might not share all their father's precepts isn't germane. The solution is not censoring mention of their origins, but if they moved away from JBS positions, document that as well. This keeps coming back to your side of this dispute not having to do any work. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Utter nonsense! No, we do NOT "simply repeat the sources", if for no other reason than that sourcing does not equal relevance. Sourcing is the threshold for inclusion, not a guarantee. Belchfire-TALK 23:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources

Here are some additional sources, some of which make a strong connection between Fred Koch's JBS involvement and his son's political views. Apologies if I included anything that has been previously posted.

1. "Charles and David Koch are following in the ideological footsteps of their father, Fred, an independent oil field innovator and early member of the conservative John Birch Society. ... The Koch brothers, David and Charles, own virtually all of Koch Industries and share a libertarian ideology."

2. "Just as Koch inherited his oil business from his father, Americans for Prosperity borrows from the ultra-right group also founded in part by his dad, the John Birch Society.

Conceived by Robert Welch and a small group of conservative industrialists, including Fred Koch - David's father and the namesake of the family firm of Koch Industries - the John Birch Society cloaked its pro-business, anti-civil rights agenda in the rhetoric of the Cold War. ... Cushioned with large donations from Koch and others, the Birch Society helped propel Barry Goldwater to the Republican nomination in 1964 and helped Republicans make gains in the congressional midterms of 1966.

Like Americans for Prosperity, the John Birch Society rarely acknowledged its funding from the very rich. Instead, it depicted itself as a citizens group merely interested in American ideals of freedom. Rather than argue the policy nuances of entitlement programs or new regulations, the Birch Society marshaled opposition by depicting progressive reform as capitulation to the Soviet Union. In that polarized environment, the interests of millionaires suddenly became aligned with patriotic families who wanted to do their part against the communist threat.

Shortly after the Birch Society faded, David Koch founded Americans for Prosperity in 1984 (then known as Citizens for a Sound Economy)."

3. "In 1940, Fred Koch founded the company as an oil refiner. A graduate of MIT, he was an original member of the anticommunist ultra-conservative John Birch Society, founded in 1958. The sons did not fall far from the tree: Both Charles and David graduated from MIT and have been deeply involved in right-wing politics."

4. "David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, who together have more than $3 billion, have emerged as major Republican contributors in recent years, according to Source Watch. ... Three Koch family foundations were financed by oil and gas fortunes accumulated by their father, Fred G. Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society in 1958, Source Watch reports."

5. "The [Koch] brothers are following in dad's footsteps: Fred Koch was a charter member of the ultraconservative John Birch Society in 1958."

6. "The brothers seem to have inherited and enhanced both their father's talent as an entrepreneur and his politics. Fred Koch was a founding member of the John Birch Society, which espoused paranoid beliefs that both political parties and government were riddled with Communists, and that President Eisenhower was a Communist agent."

7. "Koch Industries has been listed as the largest and second largest private company in the U.S. in recent years. The company deals in oil, gas and the petrochemical industry as well as commodities and financial trading.

Koch and its executives have had close ties to conservative right-wing causes through the years. Its founder Fred Koch helped establish the John Birch Society - a group that according to its Web site favors less government, more responsibility "and - with God's help - a better world." "

8. "Koch Industries, based out of Wichita, Kansas, began with oil exploration and drilling in the 1930s and now manufactures a vast variety of industrial products. From Dixie cups to Lycra, - a synthetic fiber known for its exceptional elasticity - Koch Industries have made the Koch brothers billionaires and like their father, Fred C. Koch , they view the world in ultra conservative "hues."

Fred Koch , a MIT graduate was a founding father of the John Birch Society and was among a select group of ultra conservatives that was chosen to serve on the John Birch Society ’s top governing body."

9. "Billionaire campaign donor David Koch , heir to a fortune and a political legacy created by one of the driving forces behind the John Birch Society , makes no secret of his enthusiasm for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. ... Like their father before them, David Koch and his brother Charles are longtime champions of extreme right-wing causes."

10. "This is in line with Koch family politics. Fred Sr. grew up as a fervent anti-communist and major supporter of the arch-conservative John Birch Society . David in particular followed his father's political lead, pumping $1.6 million of his own money into his 1980 vice presidential campaign on the Libertarian Party ticket."

11. "He was introduced to conservative politics by his father, a member of the advisory council of the fiercely anti-communist John Birch Society . And [Charles] Koch, at his father's request, briefly joined the group."

12. "Charles and David Koch are following in the ideological footsteps of their father, Fred, an independent oil field innovator and early member of the conservative John Birch Society."

13. "Fred Koch was a founder of the John Birch Society , a coven of anti-communists and intellectual louts. The Koch brothers' success allows them to further their father's work: They know well what money is, how to make it and what it can do when focused on ruthless ideology."

14. "The Koch clan's fortune originated in Russia, where their father, Fred, built oil refineries for Stalin's regime. In 1946, Koch returned from the Soviet Union to Wichita, Kansas, and founded the ultra-right wing John Birch Society . David and Charles have backed even more extreme right-wing causes. In 1980, as a Libertarian Party candidate, David campaigned against Ronald Reagan."

15. "David and Charles had absorbed their fathers conservative politics and adopted the John Birch Societies interest in a school of Austrian economists who promoted free-market ideals. They were particularly influenced by the work of Friedrich von Hayek, the author of The Road to Serfdom(1944), which argued that centralized government planning led, inexorably, to totalitarianism."

16. "Well, this "friend of liberty" turned out to be David Koch, who inherited, along with his brother Charles, a fortune from his father, Fred Koch, a founder of the ultraconservative John Birch society."

17. "Years later SIL's advice to libertarians about finding a sponsor would come true for the Libertarian Party (LP). Charles Koch, a former member of the John Birch Society and heir to the fourth-largest family-owned business in the country, began funding LP organizations and campaigns with millions of dollars of his own money."

18. "But the two men [Charles and David Koch] are also anti-government ideologues who believe in what they preach, an inheritance from their fiercely anti-communist father Fred, who was a founder of the radical right-wing John Birch Society."

19. "For decades, the Koch brothers, billionaire heirs of one of the largest privately held companies in the United States, have covertly sought to promote their hard-right ideology through third parties, think tanks, foundations and front groups. Their late father, Fred, having earned a fortune assisting the nascent Soviet oil industry, eventually became a right-wing extremist and member of the John Birch Society . His sons, especially David Koch , have not only expanded the family business but infiltrated their father's political views into the mainstream."

20. "The Koch brothers come by their hatred of anything progressive honestly because their father, Fred Koch, was a founding member of the John Birch Society."

21. "The Koch brothers are in many ways the hidden hand behind the tea party, which mind-melds corporate interests, libertarians, and the fanatical, 1950s-era John Birch Society."

References

---

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Given all of these refs and the ones presented above, I see no legitimate reason not to include this brief sentence:

“ The phrase "Koch brothers" generally refers to the sons of Fred C. Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, a radical right advocacy group. ”

...or something similar. We have numerous direct quotes to draw from, from reliable publications with editorial oversight. To obstruct this content when presented with a mountain of credible sources and clear, detailed explanations of Wikipedia policies on inclusion, speaks to the the priorities of the obstructing editors. I think we need to consider putting knowledge before ideologies, and principles before preferences. - MrX 16:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC), 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC), 21:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  17:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC), 20:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a great help. The list contains the a number of examples of the poorer sources that simply mention JBS without connecting them to the son's politics and as such they offer no support for inclusion of JBS in the article, but there are sufficient sources that do connect them to support inclusion in some form. I think we should say more about the connection than just mentioning JBS and connecting it by implication as in this proposal. [BTW, I would recommend dropping the References header since it's unnecessary and encourages editors to edit beneath it which obscures the real topic in the edit history.] Jojalozzo 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed language, as it give undue weight to JBS. Of all the things we could say to briefly define Fred C. Koch, why is JBS the only one worth mentioning? This is naked POV-pushing. Belchfire-TALK 21:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The perhaps you can clothe it by finding sources which show that some other material should be added as well!! Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Straw man. I didn't say anything should be added; I said the reference to JBS should be subtracted. The onus is on you to show us why anything is needed beyond saying that Fred was a right-wing industrialist. Using JBS in this context is coatracking. Belchfire-TALK 23:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We now have a multitude of sources that both implicitly and explicitly state that the politics of the Koch brothers was influenced by their father, and by the JBS. In fact, we now have two sources that state that Charles was a member of the JBS. We are well past the barriers of undue, insufficient sources, irrelevance, coat racks, and fringe, and well into the domain of best how to craft this content so as to improve this article. You can either help with this, or you can continue to protest and wiki-litigate in the same pedantic fashion. - MrX 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL! You accuse me of "wiki-litigating", but I'm not the one trying to bypass an ongoing RfC, am I? Belchfire-TALK 23:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to buypass the the RfC. It will likely end in a no consensus close, leaving us with the same question of if- and how to include this content. What I am saying is that these discussions are rarely productive when the entire basis of the exclusion argument consists of a strict interpretation of guidelines and essays, without consideration of their foundational principles. - MrX 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. These discussions are not productive for those trying to erect a coatrack when policy is observed. Others may see them as being quite productive, in terms of article quality. Belchfire-TALK 00:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• My selections, though this list needs further paring down:

1. "Just as Koch inherited his oil business from his father, Americans for Prosperity borrows from the ultra-right group also founded in part by his dad, the John Birch Society.

   Conceived by Robert Welch and a small group of conservative industrialists, including Fred Koch - David's father and the namesake of the family firm of Koch Industries - the John Birch Society cloaked its pro-business, anti-civil rights agenda in the rhetoric of the Cold War.

   ...

   Cushioned with large donations from Koch and others, the Birch Society helped propel Barry Goldwater to the Republican nomination in 1964 and helped Republicans make gains in the congressional midterms of 1966.

   Like Americans for Prosperity, the John Birch Society rarely acknowledged its funding from the very rich. Instead, it depicted itself as a citizens group merely interested in American ideals of freedom. Rather than argue the policy nuances of entitlement programs or new regulations, the Birch Society marshaled opposition by depicting progressive reform as capitulation to the Soviet Union. In that polarized environment, the interests of millionaires suddenly became aligned with patriotic families who wanted to do their part against the communist threat.

   Shortly after the Birch Society faded, David Koch founded Americans for Prosperity in 1984 (then known as Citizens for a Sound Economy)."

2. "He was introduced to conservative politics by his father, a member of the advisory council of the fiercely anti-communist John Birch Society . And [Charles] Koch, at his father's request, briefly joined the group."
3. "Fred Koch was a founder of the John Birch Society , a coven of anti-communists and intellectual louts. The Koch brothers' success allows them to further their father's work: They know well what money is, how to make it and what it can do when focused on ruthless ideology."
4. "David and Charles had absorbed their fathers conservative politics and adopted the John Birch Societies interest in a school of Austrian economists who promoted free-market ideals. They were particularly influenced by the work of Friedrich von Hayek, the author of The Road to Serfdom(1944), which argued that centralized government planning led, inexorably, to totalitarianism."
5. "For decades, the Koch brothers, billionaire heirs of one of the largest privately held companies in the United States, have covertly sought to promote their hard-right ideology through third parties, think tanks, foundations and front groups. Their late father, Fred, having earned a fortune assisting the nascent Soviet oil industry, eventually became a right-wing extremist and member of the John Birch Society . His sons, especially David Koch , have not only expanded the family business but infiltrated their father's political views into the mainstream."
6. "The Koch brothers come by their hatred of anything progressive honestly because their father, Fred Koch, was a founding member of the John Birch Society."
7. "The Koch brothers are in many ways the hidden hand behind the tea party, which mind-melds corporate interests, libertarians, and the fanatical, 1950s-era John Birch Society."

----

Jojalozzo 21:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Jojalozzo, are these the sources that you deem usable? - MrX 22:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

These are the sources that attempt to explicitly connect the sons to JBS, some of them more than others. I think it would be undue to use more than one or two. None of them are usable in support for a sentence such as you propose: "sons of Fred, founder of JBS". It is all opinion and should be presented as opinion. Jojalozzo 03:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. The influence of the JBS on the Koch's, or the influence of Fred on the sons would be a matter of (informed) opinion. However, statements like "Charles Koch, a former member of the John Birch Society" are facts, or at least presented as such. - MrX 04:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but there's no utility in including such a statement in this article. Jojalozzo 04:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"No utility"? That sounds like "I don't like it" and it fails as an argument. Binksternet (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"No utility" sounds to me like "it doesn't improve the article", which is a valid reason for exclusion. Meanwhile, those who want to keep it have offered no valid reason for inclusion other than "it's in a source". Belchfire-TALK 09:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Many authors who have written about this topic deem it important to mention the JBS connection. Who are we to say this connection is too flimsy? We go by reliable sources and they have set a course for JBS inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Many authors" weren't editing Wikipedia at the time. "Who are we"? We're Wikipedia editors - deciding what goes and what stays is our job. Got any more ridiculous rhetoric? Got any actual reasons why JBS should be included, besides "it's in a source"? That seems to be all you have. Belchfire-TALK 09:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For those who have not read the sources being discussed on this page I encourage them to do so before posting here. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, it's obvious from the huge range of sources which have been brought forth at this point that they express a wide-ranging consensus that the JBS-Fred-sons-politics connection is important. You've argued that they don't actually say that, which is untrue; you've argued that it's coatracking, which is also untrue; you've argued that a couple of the sources could be considered biased, which even if it were true is made irrelevant by the range of sources; and you've argued that it makes the Koch sons look bad, which is also irrelevant. Now we're back to your ridiculous theory that we have to laboriously argue any given point into the article through some (unspecified) form of discourse which appears in practice to amount to you rejecting out of hand whatever argument we care to make about the sources. That simply is not a valid model for consensus editing; you don't get to exclude material simply by being endlessly contentious about it. Material which the sources present is the raw material for inclusion unless there is some policy of sound editing which would exclude it. We don't have to include everything, but once someone has decided to add it you do actually have to come up with some valid argument as to why its inclusion would harm the article. We've been around all your reasons, and none of them hold up; and against that, we have a comprehensive consensus from the sources. I've offered you a legitimate way out of this over and over, which is to come up with other sources which refute the consensus position. You've never bothered. Now it really is time for you to put up some source which defends your theory that the JBS connection is irrelevant and misleading. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Another straw man. I haven't argued that it makes the brothers look bad - but you've argued against that as if I have. My "theory" is simply that you need consensus to include your preferred content. You don't have it. Laborious? Just look at how much effort you've expended on this dead horse. If laborious argumentation is an issue for you, then stop. Belchfire-TALK 18:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

again, how does the father's association with JBS actually impact the subject of this encyclopedia article about "Political activities of the Koch brothers"? What source explicitly (because implicit connections are NOT acceptable ) makes the connection? Just cause there is a source that says "something" does not mean that the "something" is appropriate for every encyclopedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The father's association with JBS relates to "Political activities of the Koch brothers" because, as a sampling of the sources make very clear, the brothers' political activities were influenced by Fred's membership in the JBS. Certainly if there are concerns about the reliability of any of these sources, they can be reviewed at WP:RSN. Concerns about WP:UNDUE can be argued by presenting sources that by their magnitude and diversity, eclipse the 30+ sources that have already been presented here. Concerns about WP:COATRACK, in my opinion, do not apply to this article, as the material in discussion is inextricably related to the article's subject. Also, I think the coatrack essay is best applied to obvious spam. By the way, there is not just "a source that says "something" "; There is a preponderance of at least 31 sources that say fundamentally the same thing: "The phrase "Koch brothers" generally refers to the sons of Fred C. Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, a radical right advocacy group." - MrX 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The father's association with JBS relates to (impacts) the "Political activities of the Koch brothers" because...

...""Charles and David Koch are following in the ideological footsteps of their father, Fred, an independent oil field innovator and early member of the conservative John Birch Society." (1)

..."The [Koch] brothers are following in dad's footsteps: Fred Koch was a charter member of the ultraconservative John Birch Society in 1958." (5)

...""The brothers seem to have inherited and enhanced both their father's talent as an entrepreneur and his politics. Fred Koch was a founding member of the John Birch Society, which espoused paranoid beliefs that both political parties and government were riddled with Communists, and that President Eisenhower was a Communist agent." (6)

..."He was introduced to conservative politics by his father, a member of the advisory council of the fiercely anti-communist John Birch Society . And [Charles] Koch, at his father's request, briefly joined the group." (11)

..."Charles and David Koch are following in the ideological footsteps of their father, Fred, an independent oil field innovator and early member of the conservative John Birch Society." (12)

..."The Koch brothers come by their hatred of anything progressive honestly because their father, Fred Koch, was a founding member of the John Birch Society." (20)

..."The Koch brothers are in many ways the hidden hand behind the tea party, which mind-melds corporate interests, libertarians, and the fanatical, 1950s-era John Birch Society." (21)

- MrX 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

ETA: I forgot to address the concerns about original research. From the policy "Original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Editors are invited to review the sources and advance any theories on how all 31+ sources do not make a connection between the JBS, Fred Koch and the political activities of his sons. Failing that, we can also take it to WP:ORN. - MrX 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not considering the remainder of the WP:OR policy, particularly WP:STICKTOSOURCE "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. " For example in your list above you are cutting off the material after the "following in the footsteps" which identifies the brother's "following" as non-JBS related. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

All very good points and I was indeed considering the rest of the policy. After reading the 21 sources that I identified yesterday, I believe that the quotations are representative of the broader context of the source articles. In fact, in many cases, this is reinforced by simply looking at the title of the articles. However, my preference would be that editors interested in this discussion would actually read the sources, and come back to this discussion with any examples of how the quotes above are out of context with the articles from which they were cited.

In the example that you gave, here is the quote and the surrounding context:

David Koch also contributed $2,000 to the 2004 campaign for Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), and Kochpac gave $1,000 to the campaigns of Georgia Republican Reps. Jack Kingston and Nathan Deal. Charles and David Koch are following in the ideological footsteps of their father, Fred, an independent oil field innovator and early member of the conservative John Birch Society. Charles Koch helped found the Cato Institute, and David Koch helped start Citizens for a Sound Economy, research and policy centers that continue to receive their support.

source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution

So there we have a political activity of one brother, followed by an assertion as to how the brothers political views were influenced, followed by political activities of both brothers. - MrX 18:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are stating that Cato and CSE are organs of the John Birch Society? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No. I really don't know whether they are or not. - MrX 20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Then one really needs to be really careful that one is not reading into the source material something that is not there and transferring inappropriate assumptions into the article space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That argument is both coke and pepsi are colas, therefore coke owns pepsi. TFD (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@ TRPoD - Yes, and fortunately we do not have to do that since several sources explicitly make the connection. Many other sources implicitly make the connection. As good editors, we can look at all of these and conclude that there is a common theme and edit the article accordingly. Naturally, we should also evaluate sources that say the Koch's were not influenced by their father's involvement with the JBS. So far none of these have been presented. I did find one op-ed piece criticizing the Fang article, however, it was pretty vitriolic in tone. - MrX 21:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in that ref. I hope you agree that they're all opinion except when they just simply mention founding of or membership in JBS. Jojalozzo 22:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fang Article Criticism. Yes, I agree that above quotes that I presented consist mostly of opinion, or analysis of opinion, with few concrete facts. - MrX 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The argument for including mention of JBS is weakened by use of sources that simply mention the the father's ideology and his involvement in the JBS, without explaining the ways the father's JBS involvement impacted the sons' politics. Simply mentioning two things in the same sentence does not give us a source that makes a connection between them. I think we'll make little progress here until those in favor of inclusion understand this or at least acknowledge the issue rather than arguing against various other straw arguments. Arguing that there are 30+ sources in support of inclusion, when many of them actually make no real connection between the sons and JBS but place them in verbal proximity (a "narrative"!), suggests to me that those in favor of inclusion have an agenda other than making is not helping make this a good article that complies with BLP, OR, SYN, and DUE policy. Jojalozzo 21:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. The fact that a lot of the sources don't spell everything out is not evidence that they think the spelled-out version is incorrect. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your level of discourse, I disagree with your argument. Not spelling everything out is evidence for nothing. There are sources for well formed opinions that there is a connection, let's have a meaningful discussion about them and how to best use them (or not use them). Jojalozzo 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So, Mangoe... you're a mind-reader now? You're actually presuming to know what an author was thinking, and you want to import those imputed thoughts to Wikipedia... but you don't think that's original research? Seriously? Belchfire-TALK 22:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Belchfire, I apologize for saddling you with one of RedPen's bad arguments, as I see upon checking that the "have you ever been" remarks was his and not yours. That said, you are putting up a great deal of resistance to including this without, it seems to me, giving a fact-based reason for the exclusion. Which is to say, you are not giving an explanation of how the article will be inaccurate if the material is included, whereas we've be over the issue of how it will in inaccurate if the material is excluded, over and over. You've made some points, and we've made counter-arguments, and you ignore those and either repeat old arguments or try out some new argument, which we then refute. As I've said a bunch of times, the only picture I can pull out of the sources is the one that we've been trying to get into the article; the exclusion of the material presents a distorted picture. If you want this article to present that other picture, I refuse to accept that you get it by default; it needs to be defended, and based on my previous experience with this sort of exclusionary dispute I predict that the latter stages of dispute resolution are going to side with inclusion unless you mount an active defense of a different version of the facts. I haven't read every source out there, but from my perspective it's hardly necessary: they are all consistent with the picture of the sons' libertarian outlook arising from the father's radical right politics, as exemplified by his founding membership in the JBS. I don't think we can present an honest picture of the sons' political activity without this background, particularly since it appears so often in the sources as to practically constitute a Homeric epithet.

I see no reason to bother responding to another one of your rationalizations of how some contorted interpretation of policy protects you from having to defend your version of the facts. And I really think that a reviewer who has the fortitude to wade through all this material could close this RFC with consensus to include and you as a stubborn holdout. My opinion, of course, on the last. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This diatribe is emblematic of all your arguments thus far: you confuse your own opinion with fact. I've said repeatedly that this is a problem of undue weight. I've said repeatedly that I see nothing wrong with stating that Fred's views were from the far right. Why wouldn't that be sufficient towards imparting an understanding of his influence on the brothers? Why is it so critical to mention JBS? Answer: it's not critical, unless one is trying to construct a coatrack. You could end this disagreement instantly by meeting us halfway and accepting the compromise position that I've just outlined. I'm not the one being obstinate here; I've already given considerable ground. Belchfire-TALK 22:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My supposed "opinion" is what I have gotten from the sources. You keep all but suggesting I have some axe to grind against the Koch family, when in fact I was only vaguely aware of them as some sort of supposed nefarious conservative influence buyers until I came to this dispute. I knew nothing over their actual history until I started reading the sources that have been presented. And you know what? They've done a solid job of convincing me that the version we want to insert is accurate and necessary for other readers to get a good understanding of the whole of the Koch sons' political history. There is no way that I'm going to accept your counter-charge of undue weight when there are so many sources against that, especially since (I repeat for the umpteenth time) you haven't provided any source to back up what is manifestly your opinion. Of all the possible criticisms, WP:UNDUE is the least plausible given what we (and especially Mr. X, who deserves kudos for a huge effort) have presented. I don't see any place to compromise; the one weak point, in fact, is that the focus on eliminating the JBS has made it impossible to talk about how the sons eventually evolved to a different position. Mangoe (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that you're on-record stating that you are unwilling to compromise, it's clear that you are unreasonable and no further discussion with you will be fruitful. Belchfire-TALK 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no wine here at this Mad Tea-Party. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.