Jump to content

Talk:Koch network

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

Template:Findsourcesnotice

United Negro College Fund, FSU: WP:OR WP:SYN

There is nothing in the refs to suggest that either eductional grants are "political". We would need a ref saying that to include, otherwise it is just WP:OR or the opinion of the editors at this page. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my revert; I would be in favor of removing both, but removing FSU would require consensus, due to the edit wars regarding its initial inclusion. We have references that both are controversial, and that the FSU grant is perceived by some (unreliable) sources to be for the purpose of promoting free-market ideology, and we can find other sources that promoting free-market ideology is considered political. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. Are there any refs suggesting that the UNCF grant is in anyway political? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can find.
In the FSU section, I removed one source that discusses yet another grant by yet another Koch Foundation to yet another university, and noted that the opinion column is clearly just that, so is not reliable. But I don't see anyone saying it is "political". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the 'dubious' tag that you added, note these sources

"The Koch Foundation also wanted to establish an economics course called “morals and ethics” and require the reading of books by the author Ayn Rand, a conservative economic icon, according to materials obtained by the review committee."
— WCTV

"The United Negro College Fund donation isn’t the first of the Kochs’ to be questioned. Faculty at Florida State University in 2011 were upset to discover that a grant to its economic department contained guarantees about involvement in hiring and alleged curriculum creep, including mandatory Ayn Rand in some courses."
— Inside Higher Ed

- MrX 03:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I note that the one about UNCF says nothing about politics. Probably because it was reportedly for just for scholarships and some UNCF general support. The fact that unions don't like the Kochs doesn't make the donation a "political activity" of the Koch brothers. Best try to find a ref in order to include it in an article about political activities.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the "dubious" tag; I think that was Capitalismojo. But, we don't have any sources for the FSU donations being "political", either. There may be some sources that that they are "perceived" to be political, but I haven't found those, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add a "dubious" tag either. I don't see such a tag at the article. Anyway, I have been searching but I see no UNCF refs that would support inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "dubious" tag and hasn't been one in the history that I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Arthur added the reliable source tag a few lines below the existing dubious tag. I have not studied the UNCF sources yet, so I can offer no opinion about it right now.- MrX 04:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Koch scholarships are for students studying “how entrepreneurship, economics, and innovation contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society.” That is political, since only students of a certain political bent would qualify. TFD (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting opinion or theory. Have a ref that supports it? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: I disagree. Only students interested in that "political bent" would be interested in that course of study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you think for example that members of Occupy Wall Street or MoveOn.Org or similar groups believe that entrepreneurship contributes to the well-being of societies? TFD (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People who study the history of Germany in the 30s and 40s are not of neccessity Nazis. People who study entrepreneurship are not of neccessity entrepreneurs. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People who study how the Nazis "contribute[d] to well-being for individuals, communities, and society” probably are Nazis. 03:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)TFD (talk)
Nothing in the refs say "contribute[d] to well-being for individuals, communities, and society” Where are you getting that? Capitalismojo (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that some sort of Original Research from primary sources, or what? It's not at the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the United Negro College Fund website page for the UNCG/Koch Scholars program.[1] TFD (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that would be original research from primary sources. Got it. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question that started it off...Does any ref talk about this donation to the United Negro College Fund as "political"? Answer, per above, is apparently "No". Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using primary sources is allowed by "no original research", it is only novel interpretations that are not allowed. TFD (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: Such as the grants being "poitical"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly are political - read the source. I find it ironic that you think that "libertarian views" are non-political, they merely represent what everyone thinks, then crusade to make sure people agree with them. TFD (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the UNCF ref says anything about "libertarian" or "views" or "politics" or "policy". So, no, it is not "clearly" political. It is not politcal at all. That fails verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context is required

The subject of every sentence in this article need not be specifically the political activities of the Koch Brothers. We are required to offer context. Attempting to write an article strictly about the political activities of the Koch Brothers with no context would be an attempt to rob the article of meaningful, contextual content. For example, may we mention that the Koch brothers are brothers? It is not a political issue.

In 2011, the EPA reported that Koch Industries "emitted over twenty-four million tons of carbon dioxide", as much as is typically emitted by five million cars.

The second sentence in the climate change section, deleted twice in the last two days. The source is not at issue in edit summaries. Clearly highly relevant context. Not only are the subjects of this article involved in fossil fuels intersts, but, highly relevantly, they are noted emitters of carbon dioxide.

Maybe the whole point of this article is a pure POV fork play, segregate the "political activities" from polluting the Koch brothers' story? Hugh (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be appropriate in Koch Industries. In any case, it requires more context to establish relevance of that sentence to anything. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have to give the context more context before we can give context? The relevance is not clear? You are not sure if it is relevant that readers of this article understand that Koch Industries is a noted emitter of carbon dioxide by the US EPA as they read the section on the Koch brothers' political activities in the area of climate change? Really? Hugh (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we trying to state that the carbon-footprint of Koch Industries is in itself a political activity? We have no refs for that. If we are trying to imply that the carbon-footprint of Koch Industries is the reason the brothers are active in climate-policy and EPA lobbying, I think we'd need a ref for that. Otherwise we are just engaging in Synthesis. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Capitalismojo; also think the fact is probably relevant to Koch Industries.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I think you know that I don't think the carbon emissions themselves are not a political activity. Hugh (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you guys are doing there: hoe to a ultra strict "political activities of the Koch brothers ONLY" policy. Kill the article by stripping it of all context so as to end up with an article you are very sure no one will ever want to read or be able to get through without gagging on incoherence. Would you support a move to "List of political activities of the Koch brothers?" List articles are generally given more leeway with respect to lack of cohesiveness and poor writing and lack of context. Hugh (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add this content. It has been in the article for over a year. Please self-revert your delete and restore the content as we continue to discuss it. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I'm doing is looking for RSs and avoiding WP:Original research, and I've already said the material is probably relevant in a different place. Show me an RS other than your own interpretation that estabishes relevance here, and then I'll agree with you instead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, read the source, the New Yorker. Hugh (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make your case based on it and I'll listen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) oh. I see you edited the article again. Your last remark would have been helpful if instead you had posted this diff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would have been helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations Section

The sections on Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity seem to have a couple of issues. First off, the link to the Politico.com source (http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=70&threadid=4355176) doesn't take me to the actual article. Is anyone else having this problem? If this article is no longer available, then new sources need to be added. Secondly, the Freedom Partners piece in regards to Tea Party funding is taking material from multiple sources in order to make a statement. See WP:SYNTHESIS. From Wikipedia policy, "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I have read through the sources cited in this section and do not necessarily see where it explicitly states that 236$ million dollars has gone to organizations such as the Tea Party Patriots.

In addition, per WP:NPOV, there is no mention of any of the other organizations that this money went to. Such as the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee or Generation Opportunity. If some other users could take a look at this that would be great, otherwise I don't see how it is majority view. Thanks. Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 18:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, did you try to fix the broken url in the ref? Hugh (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would if I could find the original URL to the source that the article is referring to. However that is besides the point - I'm more interested in the WP:SYNTHESIS problem here. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 18:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal by Comatmebro

I am opening this section so that Comatmebro can discuss their reasons for deleting this content.- MrX 17:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Comatmebro, but many of the removals were unsourced and disputed appellations applied to existing (linked) organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. Some specifics would be useful.- MrX 20:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"an organization founded by David Koch"
Actually, AFP is a spinoff of a spinoff of an organization founded by David Koch
"AFP's policy agenda is aligned with the Kochs' business interests."
Properly attributed, but there is an independent economist who disagrees. That used to be in the article.
"AFP spent $45 million in the 2010 election."
Probably AFPF.
"... and in my opinion, reduce it to a partisan adjunct to AFP, the activist political group they control."
Possibly in the source, but gossip at best, and a BLP violation at worst.
(Freedom Partners) "An organization with ties to the Koch brothers"
True, but the source isn't reliable for that fact.
"amid unusual publicity"
unnecessary, probably not in the source, almost meaningless
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of these concerns are addressed nicely in the first paragraph of Americans for Prosperity#Background, founding, and growth. Perhaps "founded" should be changed to "funded"?
  • I don't object to replacing Ed Crane's quote with third-party analysis.

  • "The Koch brothers — America’s wealthiest industrialists — had a direct hand in the resurgence of the right during November’s midterm elections. Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the conservative nonprofit that David founded, spent $45 million bankrolling right-wing candidates, many of them Tea Partiers."
    — Forbes

  • Freedom Partners sources:

"The group, Freedom Partners, and its president, Marc Short, serve as an outlet for the ideas and funds of the mysterious Koch brothers, cutting checks as large as $63 million to groups promoting conservative causes, according to an IRS document to be filed shortly."
— Politico

"Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the funding arm of the political network backed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch,..."
— Washington Post

"... the Koch brothers political arm, Freedom Partners,..."
— NBC News

Taking a look at this page as well. From my initial look, the same NPOV issues are present that we have dealt with in the past. This edit in question improves the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave specific detail in my edit summaries for why the content was removed. Some of the content removed was not supported by reliable sources, or didn't have sources supporting it at all. In regards to NBC News -- that bit was deleted not because the source was unreliable, but because that piece of information had nothing to do with the political activities of the Koch brothers. Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 02:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are the specific concerns related to the POV tag in the Americans for Prosperity section?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

This is an update to the request for comment and a request for wider participation. The RfC question asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to the funding section of a political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. The main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The discussion of the RfC centers on the due weight of investigative journalism into the sources of funding of a political advocacy group that is generally not legally required to disclose their funders. Attention from uninvolved editors with some experience with articles on political advocacy groups, and with the appropriate application of WP:DUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:COATRACK, is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. This request for comment will probably be closing next week, so please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the wrong button; however, the thread should be removed (not archived) as highly biased canvassing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds are welcome. By most of us. Thanks! Hugh (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request for comment will most likely be closing one week from today, Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our due weight content policy remain central to the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on applicability and enforcement of BLP policy regarding content on this page.

There is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_-_Koch_brothers_vs_Shepard_Smith on applicability and enforcement of BLP policy regarding content on this page. --Elvey(t•c) 02:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_network&oldid=673800200"