Talk:Koch network/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Full protection

I've just full protected this for 24 hours to stop the edit warring. Please discuss the issue on this talk page or follow WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fred and the John Birch Society

OK, we have a source that he was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society. What does that have to do with "political activities of the Koch brothers"? Even if it's a political activity of Fred Koch (which is not entirely clear), it doesn't belong in this article, unless it's relevance to the subject can be determined and sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that the children inherited their father's political orientation. We should have a source that makes this connection however. TFD (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And if the grandfather were a horsethief, that would automatically belong in BLP articles? I think not. It has no direct relevance here. Collect (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the father's status with the John Birch Society is both true, and an interesting historical fact that, I suspect, many readers will want to know, given that the sons are also involved with conservative political causes. I can see no reason that it should NOT be mentioned. Sunlight is always the best policy. Include the information in the article, and if a reader is interested in the connection, that's great. If, on the other hand, the reader is not interested in the connection, then the reader can disregard it and there's no harm done. Look, an article about say, George W. Bush should certainly mention the family connection--that he's the son of George H.W. Bush. Both prominent Republicans, both presidents. Same with Andrew Cuomo and Mario Cuomo in the Democratic Party. And the same concept here. You have pointed to absolutely no downside to inclusion, and in the absence of any downside, sunlight--which in this case means inclusion--is obviously the proper policy. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's (probably) true, it's interesting, but it's not at all relevant to this article. Put it in Fred's article, and put a sentence about it in the body; it's not appropriate for the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant because their father was a creator, leader and financial supporter of the most prominent, conservative, anti-government, political influence organization of its day essentially using his wealth to buy his agenda. It is beyond interesting that this is the environment these boys grew up in. Like father like son is not a hard concept to understand. It is now the subject of the article that two of his children have created, lead and financially support the most prominent, conservative, anti-government, political influence organizations of our day essentially using their wealth to try to buy their agenda. Trackinfo (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem, however, is that founding the Birchers isn't one of the their political activities. Perhaps it might have some relevance as background material further along, but it doesn't belong in the lede. Mangoe (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it does not belong in the lede. The implication is that the son's political activities are those of the Birch Society. It looks like an attempt to make a synthesis connection. Arzel (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems suitable for brief mention in the background section, but definitely not in the lead, as it's not directly relevant to the topic of the article. Belchfire-TALK 21:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We should let the reader decide whether or not the father's John Birch Society connection is interesting or important to the reader. We can't know in advance why someone might want to know this. By omitting it, we make the decision for the reader. So, whether or not it's in the lede, it should be mentioned in the article somewhere. Again, sunlight is always the answer when it comes to information. Also, there is no downside to including the information. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are making the decision for the reader. It's called "editing". We are "editors". It's our job. Belchfire-TALK 22:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But in this case, adding the mention would take just a brief sentence or phrase and would not in any way weaken the article or detract from other information in the article. So it seems better to add it and let the reader decide whether it's relevant, or not relevant, to him or her. In any case, Belchfire, it seems as if you and I are perhaps in agreement anyway, given your comment that it seems suitable for a brief mention in the background section. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

By inserting it into the lead like you are, you have told the reader that it is relevant. Arzel (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have to be in the lede. I put it there simply for convenience, because it seemed like the easiest way to add the information. However, consensus seems to be that it shouldn't be there, and that's fine with me. It can go in as a brief sentence (or less) in the background section. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Practice is that parenthetical information from a wikilinked article is not used unless ut has direct relevance to the people in the BLP - and thus to include the JBS would require some RS making a direct connection between the sons and the JBS, else it is a lively example of coatracking. Find such a source and then add it, else it does not belong in this BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I have no idea what you're talking about. We're discussing the political activities of the sons, specificially their involvement in conservative political causes, and a one-sentence mention that the father was also involved in conservative political causes should be completely non-controversial. Some readers may find the information useful, and others may not, but by suppressing the information, we don't even give the readers a choice to consider the information for themselves. I am surpised by the resistance I am getting to adding this obviously non-controversial reference, and in the absence of any other possible reason, I suspect POV. In any event, Collect, you appear to be in the minority, as the consensus among the other editors seems to be that adding the JBS mention in the background section is appropriate. Unless I hear any reason not to add it there, in the interest of sunlight when it comes to information, and in the absence of any articulated downside to adding the information, I am going to add it. Collect, if you go against the apparent consensus on this and continue to insist upon the omission of this information, I am going to initiate an RfC. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Policy (WP:BLP) seems to lean toward Collect's interpretation, but someone must have made the connection. (And I didn't say it was appropriate as background. I said it might be appropriate only in the background section. Still, there does appear to be a majority stating it's appropriate.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My only "POV" here is that WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy which can not be contravened by any consensus. Find a secondary reliable source making the connection, and do not use the parenthetical observation as a claim in this BLP. Simple. Collect (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The WP:BLP violation, if any, is indirect. The statement made is not about the Koch brothers, and only the implication indicates that the brothers would have supported the JBS. Unlike other articles where even the implication of relevance would be a WP:BLP violation without a specific source, here there is potential relevance in comparing and contrasting Fred's "political" positions with that of his sons. It (the question of relevance) is controversial, and I feel it's not yet established, but it's not a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As for relevance, I think the main problem would be if adding material of questionnable relevance is distracting, i.e. detracts from the flow of the article or otherwise adulterates the article. Here, mentioning the father having been a founder of JBS would take no more than a sentance, so I cannot see how it would possibly detract from the article. Thus, again, I don't see a downside to adding information that you consider to be of borderline or questionnable relevance. In the absence of a downside, as I've said, I believe the proper thing to do is to err, if at all, on the side of information sunlight. I think it's rather obvious that some readers would find the father's JBS connection interesting, and for all we know, the connection could spark further research on some reader's part. Again, I think the thing to do is give the reader the opportunity to find the information either useful or non-useful. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If people really care about the father all they have to do is click on the link. The problem is that there is a clear attempt to imply that the brothers also support the JBS and are an extension of their father. This article is simply not the place to go into the political background of Fred Koch, there is a whole article for that. Arzel (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how adding one sentence about the father's JBS connection implies that the brothers also support JBS. By adding the infromation, the reader can draw his or her own conclusion. Perhaps the mention will spur the reader to do further research about the father, JBS, or both, and perhaps this further research would prove useful to the reader or to someone else. Then again, perhaps not. However, by omitting the information, we don't even give the reader the chance to look into it further, if they so desire. It's never the right answer to suppress information and always the right choice to get the information out there and let people decide for themselves whether it's useful them. This is the concept of sunlight. The fact that I am inexplicably facing so much resistance to something that will not bog down or detract the article (adding one sentence), even though there is no downside to this, suggests to me a POV problem. Arzel, if adding this information continues to be a problem to you, I will initiate an RfC. I would also be interested in hearing from other editors about this. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think an RFC is a good idea. It will bring in outside opinion, could help avoid pot/kettle dialog, and offer a more structured forum for the discussion. Jojalozzo 03:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment. The talk about "sunlight" is bullshite and not helpfull. If material belongs per editorial reasons and is reliably sourced, ect, then fine. The crap about "just include it and let the reader can decide if its relevant" is just that, crap. --Mollskman (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My inclination is that this content is beneficial to the article and its readers. I also endorse an RfC to get more outside viewpoints. - MrX 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look outside the echo chamber, folks. There are books by authors who are reasonably reliable, books that connect the Koch father's JBS right-wingedness to the Koch brothers' continuation of a right-wing focus. 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.) That is as plain as it gets, and includes a scholarly author. There are other books and other authors, but this one is quite sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that one brother is associated with Libertarianisn, which is not generally considered "extreme right" and the other is a mainstream Republican, also not generally considered "extreme right" thus trying to associate people who are not otherwise associated with the "extreme right" by virtue of familial association is just as bad as any other "guilt by association" argument with the added cavil that one rarely chooses one's parents. That McQuaig uses the "guilt by familial association" argument is not a valid reason for Wikipedia to espouse her opinion as a "fact." Directly or indirectly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You could explain that to Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks and get them to change their book, or you could write your own book and refute them. The argument stands as one which has been expressed by respected authors. Binksternet (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Refuting obvious opinion does not work. See "de gustibus non est disputandum". What is clear is that they are, indeed, giving an opinion and not an objective fact. Collect (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Beacon Press isn't someone whom I would expect to publish something at all friendly to the Kochs; it is the house publisher of the Unitarian Universalist Association, after all. Look, one of the redirects here is to Political activities of the Koch family. It might make sense to move the whole thing back to there and pick up Fred, and treat him separately within the article. There's obviously a tension here between trying to set a familial context for the sons, and to not directly drop the father's politics on them. I think a comprehensive article could do that more readily because it would obviate the argument over removal of information about the father. Could we consider this approach? Right now I'm seeing the a problem in that the people who are opposing the "dad made sons conservative" narrative don't have an alternative narrative of their own to offer. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we are not seeing any reliable sources saying that Fred's right-wing stance did not influence his sons. Without such a source, the ones asserting this connection have the floor. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether one calls it extreme right, conservative or libertarian, the father and sons occupied similar positions in the political spectrum of their respective times. TFD (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}}, and not just as the opinion of someone with a position at the extreme "other end" of the political spectrum. Aside from it being demonstrably untrue, in that "conservative" and "libertarian" are distinct positions; and it appears that one of the brothers is "conservative" and the other "libertarian". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(@ Mangoe) A reason why it was moved to "... brothers" was that the activities of the other two brothers, and one of the wives, was considered off-topic. I don't know if it was a good idea.... And the reason I don't want "dad made sons conservative" in the article is that (apparently) noone said that. We are using (possibly reliable) sources to indicate that when the sources didn't say that. Looks like WP:OR to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(to a comment far above). Is Beacon Books a reliable source per se? I mean, reputable science publishers such as The Macmillan Company have also published Immanuel Velikovsky's works; does that mean we could use his works in a science article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Velikovsky is on the same scale of reliability as McQuaig. And the claim that libertarians and conservatives are "extreme right" is quite absurd - the Koch's donate primarily to mainstream groups and candidates, no matter whether any editor "knows" thay wre "extreme" or not. Collect (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

McQuaig apparently thinks that Obama is as conservative as Bush. I think you can pretty much ignore that opinion as off the left side of the spectrum. Arzel (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We are better using academic books. However, the American Right is normally described as some combination of libertarianism, social conservatism and anti-communism (See for example Sara Diamond's Roads to Dominion or Lee Edwards' histories of the movement. Obama btw continued policies from the last two years of the Bush administration, and his most contentious initiative was Romney-style health insurance, which the Bush administration had supported. TFD (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We need a (non-ultra-left) reliable (as fact, not as opinion) source which asserts that the Koch brothers' political opinions are influenced by their father's. ("Ultra-left" is further than "far-left" :) ). If such is presented, I would have no objection to the current wording, although it still wouldn't be appropriate to expand further. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by left, far left, etc. The term "far left" normally refers to bomb throwers, not a lot of them around since the 60s. 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."[1] If a brief section about the Koch brothers in book about the Tea Party movement finds this fact significant, then we should mention it. TFD (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks are far left or otherwise non WP:RS. As for the idea `that "conservative" and "libertarian" are distinct positions` or that `the claim that libertarians and conservatives are "extreme right" is quite absurd` is a conceit of libertarians, not the mainstream. There are "left" libertarian positions such as legalizing drugs and drastically shrinking the US military. If the Koch brother have ever expressed sympathy for them they certainly haven't funded them to any significant extent. What they have poured $ millions into are conservative libertarian causes, which are by definition very conservative --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you guys are getting bogged down on the political left or right issue. The simplest solution is to simply mention that the father was involved with JBS. This would not be an implication that the brothers were influenced politically by the father, nor is it a denial that they are influenced. It is simply a statement of unrefutable fact. The reader can draw his or her own conclusion, and the information may spur further research on the reader's part. That any one could object to this simple solution seems surprising. Adding this mention would take just a sentence and would not bog down or detract in any way from the article. It is providing information, and there is no downside to doing this.

Beyond this, we may also want to cite to McQuaid and Brooks, and their theory that the brothers WERE influenced by the father. This is going beyond what I had originally thought of doing because I wasn't aware of the source material. The fact that McQuaig and Brooks are liberal--if, indeed, they are--certainly does not disqualify them as a source. On Wikipedia, reliable sources from acorss the political specturm may be cited, and any attempt to censor a reliable source because of their political view would be a POV violation. If there is credible evidence that McQuaig and Brooks are in fact liberal, then this information could also be included. Again, the point is don't censor, but let the information get out, with whatever qualifications are necessary, and let the readers make their own decisions. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've checked some of the other sources in the article, and I don't think there's really any problem in supporting the interpretation that, although the sons turned away from the Birchers per se, their father's conservative activism had a shaping influence on them. No source denies it; at best, some sources fail to address it. We can bring other sources to bear on it besides NcQuaig and Brooks, though they should be cited as well. Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know if McQuaig and Brooks are far left, but Beacon is. In any case, if we cannot make the connection between FK and JBS, and the Koch brothers and the organizations that support(because of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH), we cannot allude to it by including the reference to FK and JBS.

However, even if McQuaig and Brooks and/or Beacon are not reliable, they are notable, and if the connection does not violate WP:BLP (I don't think it does), the book is reliable for their notable opinion, which is adequate connection. Provided, of course, that the connection is properly labeled as the opinion of McQuaig and Brooks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating being on the "far left" with being unreliable. Even if McQuaig and Brooks and/or Beacon are on the "far left" (and I have no idea about this either way), I don't see how this makes them unreliable as sources. Their political views shouldn't disqualify them (same if they were on the "far right"). Unless there is information suggesting that McQuaig and Brooks are actually unreliable, they can be cited. This issue comes up frequently in the animal rights articles that I edit. There are sources that have very extreme views in favor of animal rights, but if they are credible scholars or others in the field that have published relevant information, they are still cited (with, if necessary, applicable caveats regarding their views). Same concept here--if need be, cite McQuaig and Brooks with the stated caveat that they are on the political left (if true). In addition, it doesn't sound as if anyone has found any source contradicting McQuaig and Brooks view that "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." Given this, let's include it. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What does all this have to do with the fact that the article now has been sanitized of the multiple sourced, relevant point that these brothers current political activity was preceded by their father's parallel political activity. A few of you are digging awfully deep to find faint, convoluted excuses to hide information from the public. That is a POV agenda against the free flow of information that wikipedia stands for. Trackinfo (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I know some actual Marxists, and I have to say that the characterization of Beacon Press as "far left" is a wild exaggeration. But in any case we already have MSM sources which make the same statements, so I don't see any further problem with using the work in question. We're still stuck at the same point: we have sources from a range of perspectives which talk about their father's right-wing influence, and we have sources which don't consider the matter at all. What we don't have is sources that deny any such influence, though some of the first group attest to a turning away from some of their father's more extreme positions. I don't see how we can give an adequate background here without talking about this, and at this point I don't see any narrative that's accurate which doesn't portray the activism of the sons as arising out of that of the father, making clear however that the differences between them. I therefore think that the father's Bircher past needs to be mentioned in the background section, but it needs to be made clear that this is his affiliation and not that of the sons. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Well said. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If the Kochs are "far right" (as we have alleged, occassionally in Wikipedia's voice, in the article), then Beacon Press is "far left". I'm not sure either characterization is accurate.

As for sources about Fred's right-wing influence; there should be no mention of Fred's connection with the JBS unless there is a connection made to the brothers' position. As there has been no text proposed with that connection, and most of the references proposed for the connection are not available online, I find it difficult to comment on whether there are adequate reliable sources for the connection. As I said before, there should be, but some of those supporting inclusion have been known to misinterpret sources.

For example, the quote from McQuaig and Brooks makes an analogy, not a connection. Perhpas there are other quotes from that source, but if even if that source were reliable, we would need a source making a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears I'm suffering from Romnesia. I did say it was appropriate in the body. I now think it is not appropriate in the body unless a reliable source makes a connection, and we report on that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is all spelled out in the New Yorker article as well; indeed, it states exactly the narrative that their father helped found the Birchers and raised his kids in a very conservative milieu, and that while this shaped their outlook, they turned away from the JBS themselves. It's documented not only by otehrs, but by their own statements. Attacking McQuaig and Brooks is not going to make this go away, and I say that without having looked at their book and examining it on its own merits. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Weel, then if you are going to state that they turned away from the JBS, what is the point of implying that they are linked to the JBS in the first place? Arzel (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In short - it is relevant to the father's bio, but if the kids are not "Birchers" it is remarkably tangential to their BLP articles. But let's look at McQuaig as that has been raised: She writes of the "U.S. Empire" which seems an eensy bit pointed. [2] In Holding the Bully's Coat, she states: "As the U.S. has rejected the rule of international law and become a law unto itself, Ottawa has followed in close step, eager to please our powerful neighbour. We have abandoned our traditional role as a leading peacekeeping nation and adopted a more militaristic, warlike stance as a junior partner in the U.S. 'war on terror'." Which seems to indicate an author with a strong POV at the very least. "American violence against terrorism, it seems, just happens in coincidence with its need for oil.". And back at The Globe and Mail, Linda McQuaig was taken off the tax beat after she published her devastating account of the inequities of the Canadian tax system, Behind Closed Doors [3] suggesting that her POV was too much for that newspaper to abide. And in A NEW YEAR'S TOP 10 LIST FOR THE LEFT: 2005 Was a Year in Which We Lefties Made Encouraging Gains [4] I nominate Linda McQuaig (whom he once wanted "horsewhipped") as his chief prosecutor, and 12 former strikers at the Calgary Herald as the jury. When a newspaper cans a writer for POV issues, it is possible that POV issues exist for that writer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems quite likely that we are facing bias from, at minimum, Collect as well as possibly Arzel and others, who seems inclined, no matter what, to always find a reason to argue that a reference to the father's JBS connection (and possibly its influence on the brothers' views) does not make it into this article. As I have indicated, the answer is obviously to include it with, if necessary, any necessary caveats and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. It now appears that there are multiple sources taking the view that the father influenced the brothers--including McQuaig and Brooks, the New Yorker, and possibly others. The fact that McQuaig speaks of the "U.S. empire" and refers to America's "warlike stance" does not disqualify McQuaig as a source. Any objective review of the situation would clearly result in a determination to mention the father, his views, and his JBS connection, and mention that some sources state that this has influenced the brothers' views. There does not seem to be a rational, unbiased reason to suppress this information, given the obvious interest that many readers (myself included) would have in hearing about this. As I have stated, if it's a choice between suppressing or revealing information, the proper choice is to reveal, with caveats about the source(s) if necessary, and let the reader decide for himself or herself about the relevance, if any, of the information. I fear now that we're going to have to endure an RfC. This is something I have never initiated, but it now seems that I will have to figure out how to initiate one and get it started, which I will do in the next couple of days, unless there are any changes in view on the part of Collect and the others. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Obvious to you and me and Mangoe. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, if there is any counter-authority supporting the proposition that the father's views did not influence the brothers' views, we can cite those source(s) for that proposition as well. However, what we shouldn't do is hide the pro-influence view and the sources that support it. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

[5] says "but younger Kochs put their money into libertarianism". [6] "The Koch brothers probably see themselves more as libertarians than as consevatives." I found absolutely zero evidence that either brother was ever a member of the JBS, which means that linking them to the JBS is beyond iffy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an obvious straw man argument: No one here has said anything about the brothers having been members of JBS, and no one is proposing saying this in the article.

Rather, the obvious thing to do is to add something like "Fred Koch, their father, was a cofounder of the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society, and some authors believe that his influence was instrumental in shaping the brothers' political views." (footnote to McQuaig and Brooks, the New Yorker, and whomever else). We can tweak the language, but this is what we need to do to ensure that this article gives the full context of the brothers and their political views. Adding the information would only add to, not detract from, the article, and there is really no legitimate reason to oppose adding the information given the sources that we now have for it. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. What was put there (that Fred Koch was a founder of the JBS) was worse than nothing; it's sourced, but any relevance is questionable at best, and a WP:BLP violation by implying that the brothers had some connection to the JBS at worst. What you're suggesting now (without "ultra-right-wing", unless sourced to unbiased reliable sources, or unless you rewrite as "some ultra-left-wing authors believe..." <G>), is a reasonable approach. And Collect's argument was not a "straw man" argument; without further explanation, the logical reason that Fred's association with the JBS was relevant to this article is that the brothers are also connected to the JBS, which would be a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect's sources, by the way, do not validate the connection; they mention Fred's being a cofounder of the JBS, but do not connect the fact the Koch brothers. I don't know what sources you have in mind for the connection. Is the "New Yorker" article Jane Mayer again? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect has googled and found a number of stories about Linda McQuaig and misrepresented them, contrary to WP:BLP. A self-described left-wing writer "nominate[d]" McQuaig as "chief prosecutor" for Conrad Black. Black, a Conservative peer, would later be convicted by a US federal jury and be imprisoned at the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in Florida. McQuaig had originally come to attention as a journalist for her articles about Liberal Patti Starr, that would lead to Starr's imprisonment and the defeat of the Liberal government of Ontario. The "former strikers" (at Black's newspaper) have nothing to do with McQuaig, except that they presumably would convict. McQuaig was taken taken off the tax beat at the Globe and Mail because the paper does not allow reporters to publish books outside the newspaper. McQuaig is also correct that the current Canadian government has rejected the country's post-war policy of "peace-keepers" operating within multinational institutions such as the UN, and instead has opted to provide more robust support to the US. Whether or not McQuaig is wrong to oppose this trend, it highly tendentious to suggest that only supporters of US foreign policy may be considered reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow!!! When in doubt accuse me of doing something which is absolutely proper -- namely using Google correctly, material is also found via Questia by the way - and I trust you do not think Questia is somehow evil <g>. I found information - and disparaging the editor who gets the imformation is not a sign of maturity in collegial editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We are talking in circles and have been doing so for several days. There is nothing that Collect or anyone else has said that legitimately supports excluding the information. It is possible to quibble about whether McQuaig is left-leaning, but at most, that might mean that we need to include a caveat to that effect when citing her as a source. I hereby propose adding the following statement in the background section: "Fred Koch, their father, was a cofounder of the right-wing John Birch Society, and some authors believe that his influence was instrumental in shaping the brothers' political views." (footnote to McQuaig and Brooks, and whomever else). There is no coherent rationale against adding this, and I trust the readers to accord the statement whatever weight they see fit. Who is in favor of this addition, and who is against it? ChicagoDilettante (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you have misrepresented material about a living person and respected journalist and inferred that her reporting is inaccurate. It is not what is presented in the sources you have found, but how you have misrepresented it. Her reporting, for which she was received the National Newspaper Award, landed a liberal in jail and led to the defeat of the liberal government, and because someone wishes she would now help put a conservative in jail, you now suggest her reporting is biased against conservatives. TFD (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There you go again. Direct quotes from sources misrepresent what? What you assert is the truth as you know it? Sorry, TFD, when an editor presents sources which disagree with what you assert to be the sacred truth, there is a chance that he is actually wrong. And snce you misrepresent what I wrote above, I think it clear where the problem is. Making false statements as to what another editor wrote is improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

ChicagoDilettante, your proposed text is fine for the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You are well aware that it is possible to put together quotes that mispresent the sources which is what you have done here. For example, "A NEW YEAR'S TOP 10 LIST FOR THE LEFT: 2005 Was a Year in Which We Lefties Made Encouraging Gains I nominate Linda McQuaig (whom he once wanted "horsewhipped") as his chief prosecutor, and 12 former strikers at the Calgary Herald as the jury" implied (1) that McQuaig was one of the ten nominated, when in fact it was Black and (2) that she has a connection with the former strikers. And the fact that the convicted criminal Conrad Black wanted her "horsewhipped" has nothing to do with her reputation as a professional journalist. TFD (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party, edited by Lawrence Rosenthal and Christine Trost. Trost is Associate Director of the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues, Program Director of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies, and a former research director at UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies. She earned her PhD in political science and she has taught at UC Berkeley and Mills College. Rosenthal is Executive Director and Lead Researcher for the Center for Right-Wing Studies, a former scholar of the Institute for the Study of Social Change, a former professor at UC Berkeley, and a Fulbright Professor at the University of Naples. Rosenthal and Trost were the editors of Steep, and they chose to feature as a chapter Peter Montgomery's paper titled "The Tea Party and the Religious Right Movements: Frenemies with Benefits". Montgomery is a senior fellow at People For the American Way Foundation and an associate editor for Religion Dispatches. Montgomery writes that the John Birch Society has reemerged as a "welcome member of the conservative coalition" and he traces the connection from Fred Koch to his son David Koch. Montgomery notes that Ron Paul delivered a keynote speech to the John Birch Society at their 50th anniversary celebration. 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." The connection cannot be made more plain. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was this section removed?

He gave a speech in 1963 warning of “a takeover” of America in which Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us”.

108.195.136.157 (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No good reason. We can put it back. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I give him kudos for being so amazingly prescient back in 63. But in terms of this article I don't see how this passes WP:UNDUE. Without some kind of consensus, we can't readd it. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If we exclude you, we've got a consensus. I say we exclude you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That sentence is like a hanging participle. It has nothing to do with the preceding sentence, I am not even sure what connection is trying to be made. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the political activities of the Kock family in general. It certainly isn't within his personal bio background. I suspect some are trying to imply that Fred Koch's libertarian politics begane because he was fearful of communists taking over America. If that is the case a stronger link needs to be made. Arzel (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That sentence clearly shows what Koch Sr.'s political views were. Their father's conservative views go a long way towards explaining theirs. But, of course, you edit-warred to remove it just because. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Still-24-45-42-125. The statement is a ... notable. It gives relevant family background. I've added it to the Fred C. Koch article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While it's notable here, it's obligatory for Fred's page. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on BoogaLouie's support and an additional citation, I've restored this. If you aren't happy about this, I strongly suggest that you discuss any objections to its inclusion here instead of edit-warring. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

One good reason is it was added by the IP who was blocked (under a different IP) at the time. That would not stop a reputable editor from adding it, knowing that it is adding, rather than re-adding. I think it belongs in this article (if not renamed as specified above), but elsewhere than where it was placed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, where would you suggest placing it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In case anybody cares about the article vs. just scoring points, there is a Move being discussed (in the section just above this one) that will make this change off-topic, and it appears that it's going to happen, judging by the straw poll so far. In case it isn't obvious enough, when this article becomes "Political activities of the Koch brothers", I wouldn't expect material about Fred Koch to last very long. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 08:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

With the rename, all mention of Fred was removed, which seems excessive. Fred's right-wing political activism seems very relevant to his sons'. If anything, it looks like he started the family tradition that they took up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored it since I think it's useful background material. Jojalozzo 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed it as a completely odd and uniformative hanging sentence. It may be useful for Fred's main article, but here it simply looks out of place and requires synthesis to link the quote with the political activities of the brothers. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sentences which are true, relevant, and supported by reliable sources, but which may require improvement, do not merit deletion. The family's political roots are relevant. "Hanging sentence" is prima facie false. --Lexein (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Truth doesn't guarantee inclusion, and it's prima facie irrelevant (look at the title of the article). Saying that it's "background" is OR. There is already an article on Fred Koch, that's where the material belongs. Putting it here is just cruft. Belchfire-TALK 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Truth alone doesn't guarantee inclusion, but relevance (direct family tie and influence), and good sourcing do go a long way to support inclusion. Perhaps you and/or the other deleting editors could instead find a way to write that sentence, rather than just delete it. I don't have a dog in this race, but I don't like to see apparently deeply relevant family influence deleted. --Lexein (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd that you would rack up 2 reverts if you don't have a dog in the hunt, but OK. Good sourcing is good sourcing for sourcing's sake, but it doesn't speak to relevance. The scope of the article is clearly the Koch brothers, not Fred Koch. If you want to claim relevance, come up with a source that actually supports relevance. You're claiming relevance based on your own judgment, and that's OR, plain and simple. Belchfire-TALK 20:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we're not edit warring over the whole paragraph. I've no attachment to that mention of Fred's activities though I think there probably is a way to illuminate the brothers' work in their father's light. Rather than debating that particular sentence let's find sources that make the connection between Fred's political activity and his sons' and put together a few words about it. Jojalozzo 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I suspect that (1) it is a sourcable fact that Fred's views informed those of his sons, but (2) those sources aren't going to make hay with that one speech in 1963. If this was really about giving background material, somebody would have coughed up such a source weeks ago. Instead, editors with views unfriendly to the Kochs have latched on to this one tidbit because it appears unflattering. That's not how we write good articles. Belchfire-TALK 20:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Jojalozzo 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Um... You all need to stop edit warring and talk it out. It's not worth disrupting the page and breaking good faith to make your points. I requested page protection. Jojalozzo 20:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't throw me under that false bus - I haven't latched onto anything. I'm not the only one unpersuaded, including the OP of the move request, so no point singling me out. The move request should not be used as cover to whitewash the article of anything negative. I am neither for nor against the father - there's nothing I've found positive about his relationship with his sons. Since this is a prose article, not a List of Koch brothers political activities, it is possible and necessary to describe those activities in context. Responsibilities as an editor include improvement, not just deletion. WP:BLP simply, squarely does not mandate removal of family history, and on that basis, material about the father should remain, and be improved. --Lexein (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

When you revert twice within 20 minutes while there is an ongoing discussion, "unpersuaded" isn't the word that comes to mind. You singled yourself out. As I just outlined above, somebody needs to come up with a source establishing relevance if there is to be any expectation of this material remaining in the article. Belchfire-TALK 20:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw this discussion since I have the page watched from responding to an earlier RFC, and I thought I'd provide my opinion, since I don't have any stake in this at all (and I have no intention of editing the article to reflect this opinion, I will only make edits necessary to comply with WP:BLP (see my comments below); I'm merely trying to provide an objective, policy-based perspective). I personally (without much knowledge of the material) agree that the sentence in question is likely relevant background, even if, as it stands, it doesn't stylistically work with the surrounding material (though that would certainly be no reason to remove it, only to rework it to fit). However, there is some subtext that goes along with this sentence. To say in this article that Fred Koch holds that particular view has the implication that either his sons also hold the same view, or at least that his view influenced theirs in a relevant way. This assumption, without a source, I'm afraid is WP:OR; after all, children's viewpoints often don't correspond to those of their parents, and while in this case, it may be fairly clear that that's true, such an assertion assumption needs to be cited. Honestly, I don't think it would be if this is relevant, then it shouldn't be too hard to find a source that says something to the effect of "The Koch brothers' views were heavily influenced by their father's", at which point, it simply becomes a matter of citing that, reworking the phrasing a bit to reflect the new source, and you've got yourself a relevant, verifiable fact, and this whole debate becomes moot. Arathald (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the paragraph that was removed but I just don't see where it's stated, or even implied, that the brothers are "heavily influenced". From what I understand, they're conservatives of a somewhat different stripe, leaning more towards libertarianism than Bircherism. I think that, so long as we deal with their father's views as an interesting and relevant fact without implying anything stronger, we should be fine. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If they don't share his views, then what makes the fact relevant? Just that he's their father certainly isn't enough. I already stated what I believe is the basis for proving relevance. If no reliable source can be found that makes the claim that their father heavily influenced their views, then this becomes nothing but trivia of dubious relevance, and shouldn't be included in this article (though it definitely seems to belong in Fred Koch's article). Arathald (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. It seems to be implied that this statement by Fred Koch is the basis for (or at least a strong influence of) the political beliefs of his sons. The problem is that there does not appear to be any RS' that actually make that connection, hence it is just put out their with a wink wink that this statement is relevant to the political activities of the Koch brothers. The statement is probably more notable now given the belief by many that Obama's policies move toward Marxism which would imply that the statement was highly predictive. The biggest problem to me is that the statement hangs out their without any context. You could put any quote by Fred Koch in place of that one and have the same result. Without any context, the quote is undue weight, POV pushing, and frankly it is just poor writing. Arzel (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm approaching this from a rather naive and external point of view, and examining this primarily on policy (leaving the exact facts, and therefore the correct action under policy, to the other editors more familiar with this subject). Finding a RS that makes the hypothetical assertion I quoted is what I believe is necessary to call this fact relevant. If you're right in saying that no such RS exists, then the quote doesn't belong in this article, as it had no relevance, even if it is notable (I'd argue against your reasoning for its notability, but that discussion belongs on the talk page for Fred Koch's article, not this one, unless it is also relevant here). Arathald (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The commonality is that they're politically active in right wing circles. A key difference is that they're libertarians as opposed to Birchers. Let's state the facts so that the reader can compare and contrast. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If we don't have a source that the statements are related, it's one of the best examples of WP:SYNTHESIS (by implication) I've seen in some time to include it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking over WP:SYNTHESIS, I have to agree that this is pretty clearly and explicitly precluded by the policy. The very first sentence is as follows: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is exactly what I mentioned -- the connection here is not cited anywhere. If the connection is "clear", then find a reliable source that says so and cite it. It's like like with anything else on Wikipedia: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." (WP:Verifiability). Arathald (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as I look over WP:Synthesis a little more, it strikes me that even including information saying that the views of the Koch brothers are influenced by their father isn't enough to include the quote. There must be a source linking the view in the quote specifically to the Koch brothers, otherwise this is still Synthesis. Arathald (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless the facts are relevant, then there's no reason to include them, whether or not they are true. Otherwise one could argue that Ron Paul is also a Libertarian, and therefore we should include quotes by him, and let the reader decide what's true. We need to draw the line somewhere, and that is pretty clearly at [[WP::Verificability]]. If you can't find a source, you shouldn't put it in. Arathald (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The information about their father is highly relevant to the section on family foundations. This section mentions the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation, which is the start of the first Koch family's pattern of creating foundations for a mix of political and philanthropic activity. The foundation is closely tied to the two brothers, both in terms of contributions and control. Fred's stated political views deserve mention, and it's best to let him speak for himself, as we did. There's absolutely no risk of synthesis or original research, as the quote itself comes from an article about the Koch brothers.

If you have no further objections, I'll reinstate the paragraph. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You have asserted the relevance, but not established it. Need I remind you of WP:EW? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's strange of you to say, because I clearly did establish it through the reliable sources that saw fit to bring it up. Or did you not read those sources? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to disagree. You established the facts, but not relevance to this topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. So you're saying you didn't read that New Yorker article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I read it. I just went back an re-read it. It doesn't establish the relevance of the 1963 speech to this article. The speech belongs in the Fred Koch article, not here. (Here's the link, for those following along: [7])Belchfire-TALK 18:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) In fact the New Yorker article used to support this passage specifically says that Charles Koch rejected a lot of his father's views:

David and Charles had absorbed their father’s conservative politics, but they did not share all his views, according to diZerega, who befriended Charles in the mid-sixties, after meeting him while browsing in a John Birch Society bookstore in Wichita. Charles eventually invited him to the Kochs’ mansion, to participate in an informal political-discussion group. “It was pretty clear that Charles thought some of the Birch Society was bullshit,” diZerega recalled.

So I don't think the passage is appropriate, certainly not without the qualifier that the brothers rejected a lot of their father's positions. Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I never objected to this fact; I actually mentioned a few times on this page that they were conservative, but in more libertarian, less Bircherish sort of way. I do not object to a qualification that points this out, particularly if it's well-cited so that nobody can call it synthesis. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So, we've established that it's related, but not relevant, to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is for this to be relevant, you have to cite something that effectively uses the quote to illustrate the brothers' views (yes, I read the New Yorker article, and no, it doesn't establish this fact -- the quote is in the section on the historical background of Fred Koch, which is appropriate in prose like the New Yorker article, but needs to be in its own article here on WP). Anything less than this is either Synthesis, or, with a disclaimer that the brothers don't necessarily share their father's view, quite simply not relevant, and shouldn't be included here. My reading of the comments may be biased, but it looks to me like there are more editors opposed to its inclusion than for it, so please refrain from adding the sentence back in against consensus. If you disagree with my reading of the comments, feel free to start a straw poll/vote to determine consensus more conclusively. Arathald (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, we should keep in mind that this page is governed by WP:BLP, and therefore, any contenentious content (such as this) needs to be directly sourced. In addition to being against other policies, any hint of Synthesis (which now seems to be the main issue) is even more forbidden here, and per policy, is required to be removed immediately:

Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [emphasis original]

While I said that I would not get involved in editing, it's actually a violation of policy for me not to remove content that runs afoul of WP:BLP, so I withdraw that agreement only in the case where I must remove content per WP:BLP. Arathald (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I re-read WP:SYNTH and I'm confident that, so long as we don't make any statements about how their father's beliefs affected their own, or compare the two in any way, there cannot be a violation. Therefore, we cannot be violating WP:BLP to mention it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You apparently are still unable to comprehend WP:SYNTH. If there's no statement "how their father's beliefs affected their own", then there is no reason to include the statement in the article. It's probably not a WP:BLP violation, but it is then completely irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

By that theory, we should remove all background information. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you really having trouble figuring out the difference between the Koch brothers and their father? Belchfire-TALK 07:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus for the edit you just made which restored the item--I must insist that you stop being disruptive per WP:CRUSH and WP:STONEWALL #1. Does anyone know how that RFCU against StillStanding-247 is coming along? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether there's a consensus is precisely what we're trying to determine. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the best one to determine whether there's a consensus, but the fact that no one else (on the article, or on the talk page) agrees with you suggests that you do not have a consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, when you say that you're not the best one to determine whether there's a consensus, I find myself agreeing. After all, even a quick glance at the article history shows edits that support the inclusion of this passage.[8] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There's been a clear consensus to remove the Fred Koch material since before the article was renamed. Belchfire-TALK 07:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. See above. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or is Still going from article to article claiming "no consensus" or similiar and making reverts on issues settled weeks ago? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or is your comment a transparent attempt to bait me as opposed to anything vaguely relevant to this issue? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Eeyup Spot-on, Lionel. Belchfire-TALK 07:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

to StillStanding: My mistake. That edit was after the rename, by about 5 minutes. It's still a clear consensus to remove the material. And, thinking about it, your following edit, removing the background material, was WP:VANDALISM; or, at least, an edit intentionally harmful to the article, to make a WP:POINT.

to Lionelt: It's not your imagination. As I haven't been following my entire watchlist lately, I looked at Still's edits of the last few hours, and many of them seem to be claiming lack of consensus against his edits, so he's restored them. Discussion should be on a user talk page, or possibly a project talk page, as it's not directly about this article.:: to Belchfire: Your comment was after StillStanding's, so it should probably follow StillStanding's personal attack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I sometimes have trouble understanding you.

1. You refer to "StillStanding's personal attack", but there isn't one.
2. It's obviously not vandalism, and it's only WP:POINT if your argument was already WP:POINT.

So, in conclusion, I don't know what you're talking about and wish you would explain clearly. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, you have trouble understanding simple English. Perhaps it's cognitive dissonance. Perhaps it really is that you cannot understand that background information about the Koch brothers might be relevant to this article, but background infomration about their father is not, without some indication of a connection. Perhaps there's another explanation for your actions on this article and talk page.

Lionelt's comment could not rationally be considered an attempt to bait you. It's either a rhetorical question, or an attempt to verify his suspisions about your actions. It probably shouldn't have been made on this page, although I can't think of a good place it could be made, except on the RfC/U itself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you do keep saying that, and it's still an insult. Yes, we do have trouble understanding each other. This is a fine reason for you drop the stick and stop stalking me (note: Arthur freely admits to stalking me, so there is no personal attack here). It's also a fine reason to stop insulting me by blaming me for the fact that we do not communicate well with each other. I would suggest that there is some sort of fundamental impedance mismatch at work here, so the blame is mutual.

Feel free to explain how mention of their father's political activities is not part of their background. Or don't. As for Lionelt, he claimed, "many of them seem to be claiming lack of consensus against his edits". Charitably, there was one other edit comment in which I claimed consensus as part of the reason, and that was a reference the fact that various editors kept restoring the passage when it was deleted.

Now, I don't claim to be some expert on math, but I can handle small numbers. One is not "many". Even two is not "many". Many is "many". Lionelt must know this. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation is that he used hyperbole in an attempt to get a response, such as perhaps some incivility. The irony is that, when civilly I pointed out that he's making the sort of remark that could only serve to garner a negative reaction -- baiting -- you accuse me of a personal attack, the very thing someone baiting would be hoping for. The irony is delicious, but rather than argue the fine points with you, I'm simply going to redact the alleged personal attack for the sake of avoiding pointless drama.

The lesson here is that, for the most part, when someone says they're insulted, you should accept it as true and retract what you said. I just did; why can't you? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I count at least 4 articles in the past 2 days where you've claimed to have a consensus, in the absence of support on the talk page, and restored your preferred wording, and at least 2 last week. (In some cases you have support from other editors' actions.) As I haven't been stalking you lately until tonight, there are probably more. "Many" may be hyperbole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You know it happened. I'll report the diffs in the appropriate forum, which is not here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I genuinely do not believe that it happened. If you want me to believe you, share the links now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 27 November 2012

Please add categories: [[Category:American libertarians]] [[Category:History of libertarianism]] Thanks S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not sure that there is a consensus for this edit right now. Could you wait for a couple of days so that other editors have time to comment on it? Please reactivate the edit protected template if there is consensus to add the categories after that. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As the debating in the section above roils on, I think my request will get little notice. But I am surprised that the request is not fulfilled pro forma: the categories certainly fit and are non-controversial. Indeed, I would hope they'd help attract interested editors to this particular page. --S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There is no dispute concerning the characterization of the Koch brothers as libertarian. Jojalozzo 20:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I believe that Category:Libertarianism in the United States is a better choice but I would agree that some libertarian category is needed. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with letting this proposed edit go forward, and I don't have a strong feeling either way about the proposed wording (either the original or Mangoe's proposal would be fine with me). ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support for Category:American libertarians. This is basically a combined biography, so a category that is appropriate for a biography is suitable here. The other categories mentioned, Category:History of libertarianism and Category:Libertarianism in the United States, are best left to articles that are not biographies. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. However, this is really not a biographical article. It is focusing on what the Koch brothers and their organizations are doing and not so much on who they are. Readers and editors interested in libertarianism and its history will find those categories useful. And there is little danger of over-categorization. (Compare -- biographical articles get categories of "people from xyz", "19xx births", "20xx deaths" and the like.)--S. Rich (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Would not the organizational focus be more appropriate to Koch Family Foundations? Just a thought. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the change is appropriate. Category:American libertarians belongs on the individuals' articles [it took me a while to place that apostrophe]. Category:Libertarianism in the United States is plausible. Why was history suggested? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus, yet. Perhaps one will develop over time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeez! What is the controversy? The protection/edit request template says "consensus" or "uncontroversial". The Kochs are two libertarians and they have had an impact on libertarianism in the US over a period of time. This is a request to add two categories at the bottom of the page -- not to change any substantive portion of the article.--S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is controversial. You and I take the position that Category:Libertarianism in the United States, but Category:American libertarians and (probably) Category:History of libertarianism are not. Jojalozzo and Binksternet seem to take the position that Category:American libertarians is appropriate, and (Binksternet, at least) takes the position that Category:Libertarianism in the United States is not appropriate. I'm not even sure we have a majority for any change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not controversial that there needs to be some libertarian categorization; it's the niggling detail of the placement within the category structure that is holding this up. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but I don't see any consensus for which specific categories to include from the discussion here. If you can't find a consensus from further discussion, I think turning to dispute resolution would be a good idea. This seems like the kind of disagreement that could quickly be resolved by getting more outside opinions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Mayer article section

Going back and reading this, I'm inclined to either remove the section on the Mayer article entirely, or at least rewrite it to reflect a more general picture of whatever controversy there is over investigative reporting on the Koch family. Right now it's being treated as if it were the only serious critical view, when there are many others (albeit generally with a lot less detail). Also, a lot of the criticism is less than substantial. The Friedersdorf column in the Atlantic is a less than resounding condemnation and to a large degree claims inaccuracies without specifying them. I also note that the Koch response to the passage germane to the RFC appears to be inaccurate in characterizing what Mayer said (though I say this relying on the lack of a correction notice) and a bit of a fudge: Fred Koch may not have been the founder of the JBS, but there is plenty of documentation that he was one of the founding members. In any case the picture the section paints now is of a lone, unjust crusader; if we talk about Mayer at all we need to confess that she is but one of many detractors. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong, at least in part. It's absurd to remove a reference to one of the only two sources which criticize the Kochs without quoting another article. I don't know what "Koch response" you're referring to; the one that I recall in this article was a criticism of another passage in Mayer's rant article, which can objectively seem to be unjustified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So you wish to rewrite it as a general criticism section? Mangoe (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections. But here, Mayer is part of the story. The other, "less detailed", reliable criticisms are also less inaccurate, except the ones who quote Mayer or her sources. In addition, I believe the Koch response is to a section of the Mayer article referring to Koch Industries' environmental record, rather than to the (Mayer) article as a whole or to this quote. If that is correct, the Koch reponse should be only in the section of this article where that part of Mayer's article is used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems I was correct, in part. The detailed Koch quote (^[63] at the moment) is to a part of Mayer's article not used here. It should only be used where that section of Mayer's article is used, and possibly in our article on Mayer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed content from Lobbying section

Removed this from the Lobbying section: "Koch employees were the largest donors from the oil and gas industry to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is responsible for legislation affecting that industry. Koch employees donated $279,500 to 22 Republicans and $32,000 to five Democrats, including $20,000 to committee chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan). Americans for Prosperity supported five of the six Republican members who were elected to Congress for the first time in 2010. Of twelve Republicans newly appointed to the Committee, nine signed a pledge distributed by Americans for Prosperity to oppose the regulation of greenhouse gases."

This article is about the political activities of the Koch brothers. The first sentence is about the political activities of employees of Koch industries, and there is already similar content on that page. The second two sentences are about political activities of Americans for Prosperity, and there is also already similar content on that page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DonorsTrust

I don't see the relevance of the chain of "donations" noted, even if they were adequately sourced:

• Charles Koch (now) chairs the "Knowledge and Progress Fund". (probably [61])
• The "Knowledge and Progress Fund" has "given more than $3.2 million in recent years to DonorsTrust".[61]
• DonorsTrust gave nearly $7.7 million to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in 2010.[60] (blog entry hosted at Forbes)
• (not in this article) David Koch [is] chairman of AfPF.

and the unsourced: "DonorsTrust provides funding to a variety of conservative political advocacy groups and groups that support climate change denial. "

I don't see how any combination of these statements is helpful for this article, even if there isn't an implied synthesis in combining facts to create a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The climate change denial connection I would agree is tenuous and synthesized. The Donors Trust connection is neither, given that we have multiple sources which connect it as an indirect beneficiary of Koch funds. Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The content is relevant in that it relates to well documented funding of climate change deniers by the Koch brothers, via various shell organizations that they use to distance themselves from the stink. Forbes (blog or otherwise) is certainly a reliable source for this, and the author of that article makes the connection, so synthesis is not required by us. The other source, corroborates the Koch contributions to DonorsTrust, mentioning that they are DonorTrust's largest contributor

This article is about the Koch brothers using their massive financial resources to manipulate the political landscape in the US. It's not a new story, but it is one that is rife with new revelations, some of which we must include in this article to portray the subject in a complete and objective manner. - MrX 19:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm retracting my above comments. On closer reading of the sources, there is not a connection established between Koch contributions and climate change denial, which would in fact make this content original research. - MrX 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake above; we do have a source (cited in the DonorsTrust article) for the association of that organization with climate change denial. However, a Koch chairing (but not necessarily funding) the "Knowledge and Progress Fund" which donates to DonorsTrust which donates to AfPF (which is also chaired by a Koch) does not create a connection between the Kochs and climate change, and only minimally connects the Kochs to DonorsTrust. There may be other connections between the Kochs and DonorsTrust, but I don't see what we have here as adequate, unless we establish that either K&PF is a major funder of DonorsTrust or DonorsTrust is a major funder of AfPF. That it is a major funder needs to be established by a single source, not separate sources for the amount that A funds B and for the total funding of B (or total donations of A). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I also want to assert I have no idea who may have posted as 97.182.165.176 (talk · contribs); I'm not sure the entire paragraph should have been deleted, but I'm not going to violate 3RR by deleting and restoring the same material.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Anthropogenic references?

At this diff reverting of removal of unsourced adjective "anthropogenic." I can guess what that means, but I'm sure most people cannot and I didn't see any source in the whole section explaining it, not to mentioning saying that the Koch's themselves supported it. Even Willie Soon's article only mentions the word once in the publications list, so who would even know if he uses it? Let's put up a section tag for additional references til someone finds one. Thanks. 'CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽02:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Public Television

I fail to understand how this fits in this article. This article is about the political activities of the Koch brothers. There is no political activity mentioned in this section. They take no action at all. PBS executives, apparently protective of their donors, make calls to a vendor. Thats the only activity. No activity from the Kochs at all. Perhaps this could be in the relevant BLP.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree -- that section was POV and argumentative entirely, and not related to the topic of the article. Collect (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would actually add this section to PBS or New York Public Television articles. They are the active players in this section.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly -- but not in this article. I would also note that since Mayer already has a section in this article, that adding more sections for her specific opinions is UNDUE per WP:BLP as well. Collect (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've restored some of the removed content, as it seem very relevant to the subject and adequately sourced. The Mayer material is not really the same as in the criticism section (which really should not be a separate section). I would note that this article is not so narrow in scope that we should take a literal approach of every word being an "activity." To do so would be fairly absurd and unfair to our readers who would benefit from appropriate context. - MrX 17:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is very heavily reliant on the one author, hence UNDUE hits hard. Would you have us reprint her entire article? Collect (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Much of the Koch articles should be moved to "Meyer's opinions about the Kochs" and removed from the main articles. That being said, this section is not duplicative, but should possibly be moved to the Meyers subsection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Koch Brothers' contributions to PBS are charitable rather than political activities. That should be clear from the programs they have supported. Even if they opposed a documentary about themselves, that cannot be seen as a political act. TFD (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to include the PBS text in this article. Let's be clear. Some nonprofits may change their activities to avoid losing key donors. Some donors might contribute to some nonprofits for that reason, so it is a possibility for any donor or any nonprofit. But clearly, there is no RS which states that this has occurred or that it is the Kochs' intention. The inclusion of this material in the current article is massive SYNTH and should be removed from the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Freedom Partners

So there is a new attempt to try and attack the Koch Brothers. However, none of the articles tied to the Freedom Partners states that the Koch Brothers are directly involved with Freedom Partners. I realize that there are ongoing attempts to try and make the Koch Brothers look like bogymen, but these guilt by association attacks are not appropriate for WP. Furthermore, just because some clearly biased journalist are trying to link the Brothers directly to the group does not mean that they are. Arzel (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alleged editor's motive aside, the Koch's fund and influence the Freedom Partners. In fact, they even disclosed it. You may want to read the source articles to better understand how the political activities of the Koch brothers include their involvement with this organization, and the research done by Politico et al that connects Koch's "dark money" with FP. I don't understand why one would assume that the Koch's being involved with Freedom Partners is necessarily a negative. Check out their website freedompartners.org. - MrX 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read the articles, none make a direct link between the Koch Brothers. They certainly try to make the link with the Political article implying a nefarious action by the Koch's. Without some RS's that actually state with some evidence that they are actively directing this group, it is out of scope for this article. This article is about their activities, not the activities that others claim that they are linked. Arzel (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"...none make a direct link between the Koch Brothers." I'm sorry, but that's absurd. See the quotes below.

There is no WP:DIRECTINVOLVEMENT policy that supports idea that the Koch's funding of political organizations via another organization is outside of the scope of an article about Political activities of the Koch brothers. Here are some direct quotes from our sources:

• "The group, Freedom Partners, and its president, Marc Short, serve as an outlet for the ideas and funds of the mysterious Koch brothers..." - Politico via Huffington Post
• "The website Koch Facts, set up by Koch Industries to respond to media stories about the political activities of Charles and David Koch, posted a statement on Thursday in response to the article." - Huffington Post
• "A majority of the Freedom Partners board consists of longtime Koch employees, like Richard Fink, an executive vice president of Koch Industries who supervises the brothers’ public relations, lobbying and political operations." - New York Times
• "...Freedom Partners, a group founded by the ultra-conservative billionaire Koch brothers" - Daily Finance
• "...the Koch Brothers are about to file a 38-page report with the IRS for a group called Freedom Partners, a 501(c)(6) “business league” with a mission of “defending innovators and entrepreneurs." - Nonprofit Quarterly
• "...Charles and David Koch and their wealthy partners funded an, until now, “secret bank” that made “grants” of $236 million during the 2012 election cycle to maintain the right-wing political infrastructure that advances their economic interests. And by all accounts, they’re just getting started." - The Nation

- MrX 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Koch Industries website has a page about Freedom Partners. Reliable sources say that it is funded by the Koch brothers and supports U.S. conservative causes.[9] I do not see anything wrong with mentioning their involvement. TFD (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

From the Political article. "Koch-linked entities provided a “minority” of the funds and that the largest single donor gave about $25 million." The fact is that the donors are private. I realize that several liberal outlets are trying to make the link and trying to make it as nefarious as possible at the same time. If it truly is a political activity of the Koch's than simply find a source that WP:V's it. As such, all it is, are allegations that it is funded by the brothers. Without WP:V, a cornerstone of WP there is no way to include it as is. Additionally, the section is written about what Freedom Partners has done and is written like a WP:COAT. Arzel (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, none of your comments has any bearing on whether or not the edit is accurate and should be included. TFD (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The material is well-cited, relevant, and appropriate. Arjuna (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So you both agree that WP:V does not matter for this. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the article for 4 days to encourage people to discuss the issues on this talk page rather than edit/revert the article. If there is a consensus in that time, please use {{editprotected}} to request that an admin make the edit for. Admins: I have no objection to you changing the protection at your discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the Political activities of the Koch brothers

It's important to note that this article is entitled, "Political activities of the Koch brothers", not "Political donations" or "Political financing". In other words, providing financial support to a political organization isn't a requirement in order to be included in this article. If they are linked to a political organization in another way, that information is also relevant/admissable. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's true, although they're so rich that they do much of their politicking through funding. MilesMoney (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree. Much of their political activity is in concealing how their money is used to achieve political objectives. - MrX 04:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)