Talk:Koch network: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:10, 31 July 2015 editHughD (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →Request for comment notice: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election from Koch-related funds: update date← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:23, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,258 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]
(68 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header\|search=yes }}		{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{Old AfD multi\| date = 30 January 2011 (UTC) \| result = '''no consensus''' \| page = Political activities of the Koch family }}
	{{Discretionary sanctions\|cc\|brief}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes \|class=C\|listas=Koch Family, Political Activities Of The\|1=
	{{Discretionary sanctions\|tpm\|brief}}
			{{WikiProject Biography \|politician-work-group=yes \|politician-priority=low }}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=Low \|American=yes\|American-importance=high \|libertarianism=yes\|libertarianism-importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Environment\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Kansas \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Low \|UShistory=yes\|UShistory-importance=low \|USPE=Yes\|USPE-importance=low}}
			}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|cc\|brief}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|tpm\|brief}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 9:		Line 20:
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(180d)		\|algo = old(180d)
	\|archive = Talk:~~Political activities of the~~ Koch ~~brothers~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Koch network/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Auto archiving notice \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=6 \|units=month }}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes		\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}

	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes \|1=
	{{WikiProject Biography \|living=yes \|class=C
	\|listas=Koch Family, Political Activities Of The
	\|politician-work-group=yes \|politician-priority=low }}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|class=C}}
	{{WikiProject Conservatism}}
	{{WikiProject Libertarianism \|class=C \|importance=high }}
	{{WikiProject Environment\|class=C\|importance=mid\|climate change=yes}}
	}}
	{{Old AfD multi\| date = 30 January 2011 (UTC) \| result = '''no consensus''' \| page = Political activities of the Koch family }}
	{{findsourcesnotice\|Koch brothers\|politics}}
	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== Total whitewash ==
	== United Negro College Fund, FSU: ] ] ==

			:''...Stand Together, a nonprofit focused on supporting community groups. The stated priorities of the restructured Koch network include efforts aimed at increasing employment, addressing poverty and addiction, ensuring excellent education, building a stronger economy, and bridging divides and building respect.''

	~~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~~. ] (]) 22:27, 3 ~~March~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		Bullshit. They are actively funding efforts against all of those things. This kind of propaganda should not be allowed in the lead section. ] (]) 23:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
	: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. — ] ] 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	::No problems. Are there any refs suggesting that the UNCF grant is in anyway political? ] (]) 02:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::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". — ] ] 03:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Regarding the 'dubious' tag that you added, note these sources
	::::{{talkquote\|"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."\|source=}}
	::::{{talkquote\|"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."\|source=''''}}
	::::- ]] 03:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::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.] (]) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I '''didn't''' add the "dubious" tag; I think that was {{u\|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. — ] ] 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::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. ] (]) 03:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	There is no "dubious" tag and hasn't been one in the history that I can see. ] (]) 04:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	: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.- ]] 04:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	: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. ] (]) 04:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	::Interesting opinion or theory. Have a ref that supports it? ] (]) 04:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|The Four Deuces}} I disagree. Only students ''interested'' in that "political bent" would be interested in that course of study. — ] ] 00:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::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? ] (]) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::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. ] (]) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::People who study how the Nazis "contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society” probably are Nazis. 03:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)] (])
	:::::::Nothing in the refs say "contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society” Where are you getting that? ] (]) 05:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Is that some sort of Original Research from primary sources, or what? It's not at the article. ] (]) 05:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}It is on the United Negro College Fund website page for the UNCG/Koch Scholars program. ] (]) 05:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
	:So that would be original research from primary sources. Got it. ] (]) 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	::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". ] (]) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Using primary sources is allowed by ], it is only novel interpretations that are not allowed. ] (]) 00:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|The Four Deuces}} Such as the grants being "poitical"? — ] ] 18:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::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. ] (]) 05:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::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. ] (]) 03:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

			== Charles Koch Institute funding of AstroTurf organization opposing mask mandates in schools ==
	== Context is required ==

			I posted this in "Political activities of the Koch brothers" under the "COVID-19" subhead. It is sourced to the Washington Post and a letter that newspaper obtained from the outfit to which the Charles Koch Institute is a "major benefactor." See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/01/masks-schools-koch-money/:
	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.

			The Charles Koch Institute is a "major benefactor" of the Independent Women’s Forum, a dark money nonprofit organization that opposes efforts to combat the coronavirus through mask mandates in schools. The group circulated a template letter to its members encouraging them to personalize and mail it to "your own school superintendents and administrators, principals, and teachers!" Among other things the proposed letter falsely asserted that "young kids do not significantly spread COVID either" and claimed that "common sense" teaches that requiring masks in school may lead to anxiety, depression, decreases in socialization skills, and increases in tooth decay in children.
	<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

			User William M. Connolley asserts flimsy dubious for erasing it, claiming that it is not NPOV, i.e. "NPOV; your desc doesn't tally with our article on them. And the material seems to mostly belong there, rather than here" I have no idea what he means by "our article" and his statement that the sourced material "seems to mostly belong there, rather than here" makes no sense. If he has a problem with the neutrality of the entry, he should suggest revisions, not simply lop it off. I will revert if he doesn't respond in a constructive way. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	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.

			In an effort to be responsive to User William M. Connolley's remarks, I have edited the entry as follows:
	Maybe the whole point of this article is a pure POV fork play, segregate the "political activities" from polluting the Koch brothers' story? ] (]) 18:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
	:It ''may'' be appropriate in ]. In any case, it requires more context to establish relevance of that sentence to ''anything''. — ] ] 19:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
	::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? ] (]) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::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. ] (]) 19:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::Agree with Capitalismojo; also think the fact is probably relevant to Koch Industries.] (]) 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	::You know what? I think you know that I don't think the carbon emissions themselves are not a political activity. ] (]) 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	::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. ] (]) 05:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	::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. ] (]) 05:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::The only thing I'm doing is looking for RSs and avoiding ], 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. ] (]) 05:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::OK, read the source, the New Yorker. ] (]) 07:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Make your case based on it and I'll listen. ] (]) 10:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	::::::(Later) oh. I see you edited the article again. Your last remark would have been helpful if instead you had posted . ] (]) 10:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, that would have been helpful. ] (]) 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

			"The Charles Koch Institute is a "major benefactor" of the Independent Women’s Forum, a nonprofit organization that opposes efforts to combat the coronavirus through mask mandates in schools. The group circulated a template letter to its members encouraging them to personalize and mail it to "your own school superintendents and administrators, principals, and teachers!" Among other things the proposed letter asserted that "young kids do not significantly spread COVID either" and claimed that "common sense" teaches that requiring masks in school may lead to anxiety, depression, decreases in socialization skills, and increases in tooth decay in children."
	==Organizations Section==

			The citations are to the Washington Post and a letter posted by the newspaper.] (]) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
	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 ]. From Misplaced Pages 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.

			==To add to article==
	In addition, per ], 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, ] ] 18:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
			To add to this article: mention of the Koch brothers's political data analytics company called ]. ] (]) 02:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
	:May I ask, did you try to fix the broken url in the ref? ] (]) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
	::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 ] problem here. ] ] 18:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

	== Content ~~removal~~ by ~~Comatmebro~~ ==		== Content dispute ==

			{{Ping\|William M. Connolley}}{{Ping\|172.110.60.4}}{{Ping\|JPxG}} I'm opening this discussion because I think all of you made good points in your edit summaries but we aren't supposed to converse through edit summaries we're supposed to converse on the talk page. The IP stated when they added the text "John Birch Society mention added, given the significance and relevance to political activities" which at first glance appears odd given there being no mention of the John Birch Society in the body. JPxG countered with "not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS)" which is very reasonable given that it does not appear in the current body. The IP replied "Misplaced Pages is the "reliable source" for Fred Koch being a co-founder of John Birch Society" which I believe is a misunderstanding of the relevant policy. William M. Connolley reverted with the edit summary "this is the koch bros article, not the sins-of-the-fathers-unto-the-7th-generation article" which touched on none of the reasons JPxG brought up nor did it provide any basis in policy or guideline for the summary, this appears to just be their personal opinion. The IP countered with "Fred Koch's co-founding of the John Birch Society is relevant, given that son Charles Koch was also a member. This is an article about the politics (!) of the Koch brothers, and failing to mention to the connection to the John Birch Society would be to hide relevant factual information." which despite their previous misunderstanding of policy does actually appear to be a nearly infallible ] argument. William M. Connolley ends with "as before: no, this is about the sons" which is again bizarrely wrong and besides the point but no matter because the revert was legit. Now here's my problem, when I search "John Birch Society" I actually find it in the sources, we appear to already have a number of sources specifically for this claim, however it appears to have been scrubbed from the article. I will delve into the history on this but interested in hearing what you guys think, I'd especially like to hear more of Connolley's rationale for non-inclusion about info about the father of the brothers. I've just never heard anyone make an argument like that and if it has any basis in policy or guideline I'd like to know because I sure as heck can't think of any. ] (]) 16:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
	I am opening this section so that {{U\|Comatmebro}} can discuss their reasons for .- ]] 17:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
	:I can't speak for Comatmebro, but many of the removals were unsourced and disputed appellations applied to existing (linked) organization. — ] ] 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
	::I don't see it. Some specifics would be useful.- ]] 20:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
	:::"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
	::: — ] ] 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
	:::*Many of these concerns are addressed nicely in the first paragraph of ]. Perhaps "founded" should be changed to "funded"?
	:::*I don't object to replacing Ed Crane's quote with third-party analysis.
	:::*{{talkquote\|"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."\|source=''''}}
	:::*Freedom Partners sources:
	::::{{talkquote\|"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."\|source=''''}}
	::::{{talkquote\|"Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the funding arm of the political network backed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch,..."\|source=''''}}
	::::{{talkquote\|"... the Koch brothers political arm, Freedom Partners,..."\|source=''''}}
	:::*- ]] 00:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

	~~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~~. ] (]) 00:06, 23 ~~June~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		Looking at the history we mentioned their dad's founding position at JBS for years, which is why we still have sources with quotes specifically for it. Will try to find the edit which removed it. ] (]) 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

			So it was removed in this edit with the edit summary "ALL articles mentioning living people are subject to that policy - in the case at hand, the material is NOT RELEVANT to this article - period." despite the second source being a New Yorker article entitled "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama" which would mean that it was relevant to this article... Period. Perhaps {{Ping\| Collect}} can explain? ] (]) 16:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
	: 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, ] ] 02:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
	::What are the specific concerns related to the POV tag in the Americans for Prosperity section?

			I did the initial revert while using ], so didn't have the chance to look deep into article history, but I think that (barring some other consensus or precedent) William's reasoning makes sense -- the article is about the guys, not their father. That's not to say that information on their family background should be excised completely. Upon some reflecton, it certainly seems UNDUE in the lead, though I can't speak to the rest of the article. ''']'''×''']''' 17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
	==Request for comment notice: $44M of $140M raised by ] in 2012 election from Koch-related funds==
	]You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks. ] (]) 17:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] -->

			== The article links contraception with abortion -- no source ==
	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, ]. The main source is a pair of reports in '']'', supported by ] and the '']''. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of ]. 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 ], ], and ], 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. ] (]) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
	::I hit the wrong button; however, the thread should be removed ('''not''' archived) as highly biased canvassing. — ] ] 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

			It should seem obvious that opposition to contraception is not significant political movement & that the linking of that with opposing baby-murder is a propagandistic crock. But at any rate, the linking done in the article was deleted on the grounds that it had no source, and the closest citation to this (citation to a previous sentence) did not evidence the word contraception at all when searched. (] (]) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC))
	Your comments at ] are welcome. By most of us. Thanks! ] (]) 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

			== Requested move 21 December 2023 ==
	This request for comment will most likely close 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. ] (]) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
			<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	::] ''Spamming and excessive cross-posting.'': Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it.
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
	::''Campaigning'': Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. ] (]) 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::Yes, the level of campaigning and canvassing is quite egregious. I particularly find the posting on Citizens United to be out of scope, especially when you consider that Hugh conspicuously failed to post the RFC notice at WikiProject Conservatism, one of the four WikiProjects AFP is currently a part of. I actually think the Citizens United posting, in which three different editors have attempted to undo the canvassing (he has reverted it all three times) is edit warring, and I think a posting at the edit warring noticeboard may be in order as the bad behavior only seems to be escalating. I'll note the irony that despite all of the canvassing, it looks like the RFC will not go Hugh's way. ] (]) 17:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

			The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. ] <small>(])</small> ] (]) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
	Your comments at ] are welcome. By most of us. Thank you! ] (]) 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
			----

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

			] → {{no redirect\|Koch network}} – The current ] is the "Koch network", this should be the title as well. ] (]) 09:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] (]) 08:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)</small>

			:I'm inclined to support because I think it is a well established term and reasonably recognizability, but many of the results are about a math concept. However, the math concept does not seem to have a wikiarticle yet. (] · ]) ''']''' 03:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	There is a relevant discussion at ] on applicability and enforcement of BLP policy regarding content on this page. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 02:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
			::I'd argue that this is the ] when moved, so then the math subject need parenthesis disambiguation when added to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

Latest revision as of 08:23, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Koch network article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American / Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Total whitewash

...Stand Together, a nonprofit focused on supporting community groups. The stated priorities of the restructured Koch network include efforts aimed at increasing employment, addressing poverty and addiction, ensuring excellent education, building a stronger economy, and bridging divides and building respect.

Bullshit. They are actively funding efforts against all of those things. This kind of propaganda should not be allowed in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Charles Koch Institute funding of AstroTurf organization opposing mask mandates in schools

I posted this in "Political activities of the Koch brothers" under the "COVID-19" subhead. It is sourced to the Washington Post and a letter that newspaper obtained from the outfit to which the Charles Koch Institute is a "major benefactor." See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/01/masks-schools-koch-money/:

The Charles Koch Institute is a "major benefactor" of the Independent Women’s Forum, a dark money nonprofit organization that opposes efforts to combat the coronavirus through mask mandates in schools. The group circulated a template letter to its members encouraging them to personalize and mail it to "your own school superintendents and administrators, principals, and teachers!" Among other things the proposed letter falsely asserted that "young kids do not significantly spread COVID either" and claimed that "common sense" teaches that requiring masks in school may lead to anxiety, depression, decreases in socialization skills, and increases in tooth decay in children.

User William M. Connolley asserts flimsy dubious for erasing it, claiming that it is not NPOV, i.e. "NPOV; your desc doesn't tally with our article on them. And the material seems to mostly belong there, rather than here" I have no idea what he means by "our article" and his statement that the sourced material "seems to mostly belong there, rather than here" makes no sense. If he has a problem with the neutrality of the entry, he should suggest revisions, not simply lop it off. I will revert if he doesn't respond in a constructive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podgorney (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In an effort to be responsive to User William M. Connolley's remarks, I have edited the entry as follows:

"The Charles Koch Institute is a "major benefactor" of the Independent Women’s Forum, a nonprofit organization that opposes efforts to combat the coronavirus through mask mandates in schools. The group circulated a template letter to its members encouraging them to personalize and mail it to "your own school superintendents and administrators, principals, and teachers!" Among other things the proposed letter asserted that "young kids do not significantly spread COVID either" and claimed that "common sense" teaches that requiring masks in school may lead to anxiety, depression, decreases in socialization skills, and increases in tooth decay in children."

The citations are to the Washington Post and a letter posted by the newspaper.Podgorney (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of the Koch brothers's political data analytics company called i360. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute

@William M. Connolley:@172.110.60.4:@JPxG: I'm opening this discussion because I think all of you made good points in your edit summaries but we aren't supposed to converse through edit summaries we're supposed to converse on the talk page. The IP stated when they added the text "John Birch Society mention added, given the significance and relevance to political activities" which at first glance appears odd given there being no mention of the John Birch Society in the body. JPxG countered with "not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS)" which is very reasonable given that it does not appear in the current body. The IP replied "Misplaced Pages is the "reliable source" for Fred Koch being a co-founder of John Birch Society" which I believe is a misunderstanding of the relevant policy. William M. Connolley reverted with the edit summary "this is the koch bros article, not the sins-of-the-fathers-unto-the-7th-generation article" which touched on none of the reasons JPxG brought up nor did it provide any basis in policy or guideline for the summary, this appears to just be their personal opinion. The IP countered with "Fred Koch's co-founding of the John Birch Society is relevant, given that son Charles Koch was also a member. This is an article about the politics (!) of the Koch brothers, and failing to mention to the connection to the John Birch Society would be to hide relevant factual information." which despite their previous misunderstanding of policy does actually appear to be a nearly infallible WP:NPOV argument. William M. Connolley ends with "as before: no, this is about the sons" which is again bizarrely wrong and besides the point but no matter because the revert was legit. Now here's my problem, when I search "John Birch Society" I actually find it in the sources, we appear to already have a number of sources specifically for this claim, however it appears to have been scrubbed from the article. I will delve into the history on this but interested in hearing what you guys think, I'd especially like to hear more of Connolley's rationale for non-inclusion about info about the father of the brothers. I've just never heard anyone make an argument like that and if it has any basis in policy or guideline I'd like to know because I sure as heck can't think of any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the history we mentioned their dad's founding position at JBS for years, which is why we still have sources with quotes specifically for it. Will try to find the edit which removed it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So it was removed in this edit with the edit summary "ALL articles mentioning living people are subject to that policy - in the case at hand, the material is NOT RELEVANT to this article - period." despite the second source being a New Yorker article entitled "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama" which would mean that it was relevant to this article... Period. Perhaps @Collect: can explain? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I did the initial revert while using WP:HG, so didn't have the chance to look deep into article history, but I think that (barring some other consensus or precedent) William's reasoning makes sense -- the article is about the guys, not their father. That's not to say that information on their family background should be excised completely. Upon some reflecton, it certainly seems UNDUE in the lead, though I can't speak to the rest of the article. jp×g 17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The article links contraception with abortion -- no source

It should seem obvious that opposition to contraception is not significant political movement & that the linking of that with opposing baby-murder is a propagandistic crock. But at any rate, the linking done in the article was deleted on the grounds that it had no source, and the closest citation to this (citation to a previous sentence) did not evidence the word contraception at all when searched. (AltheaCase (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC))

Requested move 21 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. WP:RMNOMIN (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch brothers → Koch network – The current WP:COMMONNAME is the "Koch network", this should be the title as well. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support because I think it is a well established term and reasonably recognizability, but many of the Google Scholar results are about a math concept. However, the math concept does not seem to have a wikiarticle yet. (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when moved, so then the math subject need parenthesis disambiguation when added to Misplaced Pages. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

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