Talk:Koch family foundations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Material about Koch industries

Are there citations for the company supporting/giving to the foundation? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

There's a bunch of material in here that seems relevant to other articles, but not this one. For example, there's the material about Fred C. Koch and the John Birch Society. That is noted in the Fred Koch page. There's the material about Koch Industry lobbying. That's noted in that page. Thoughts on removing those? MBMadmirer (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - don't. It's not excessive in quantity, and it's relevant background in the case of the earlier history, and the lobbying is relevant because some of the funding apparently comes from the foundations. Rd232 ^talk 10:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's going to have to be a little bit of duplication, given the similar subject matter. Dylan Flaherty 19:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what the lobbying by the company has to do with the Foundations. It just doesn't seem relevant at all to this page. MBMadmirer (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Not relevant, so tagged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And removed. Even the clearly inappropriate material (as Mayer's personal recollections, reported only in an interview) is about the Kochs and Koch Industries, with no mention of any charitable organization. Please explain the relevance before reinserting, per WP:COATRACK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Political Role of the "Koch Brothers"

The Koch family foundations contribute to both political and apolitical humanitarian efforts. However, a good deal of the controversy and disputes on this page seem to be centered around the political role of the "Koch Brothers" duo. There are many sources that discuss the political advocacy and financial largess that has been donated by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch known colloquially as the "Koch Brothers" (although yes they have 2 other brothers Bill & Frederick who are not involved in large scale political advocacy). As for sources, below are just a few that discuss the "Koch Brothers" as a notable and influential political entity ...
- The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win audio story by NPR
- The Billionaire Koch brothers war against Obama cover story by The New Yorker
- How Important Are The Koch Brothers? by The New Republic
- Koch Brothers Have Given More Than $100 Million to Right-Wing Causes video by Democracy Now!
- The Koch brothers invade California by Salon magazine
- Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law by The LA Times
- The Koch Brothers and the Tea Parties by The Washington Independent
- Schwarzenegger vs. Big Oil and The Billionaire Koch Brothers by Forbes
- The billionaire Koch brothers: Tea Party puppetmasters? by The Week
- Koch brothers to host rightwing politicians and business leaders at California resort by The Guardian
- Koch Industries (Brothers) and Republicans plan ahead by The New York Times
A potential solution could be to place David and his brother Charles' political advocacy into a separate article such as Political activities of the Koch family (or as a separate article on the political work of the two "Koch Brothers"). The sourced information will end up somewhere (along with the referenced rebuttal of the various controversies), thus it will save users a lot of time and frustration once that proverbial resting place is determined.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Partisan sourcing?

The refs for this article are all pretty partisan, Jane Mayer's New Yorker article and Frank Rich's piece are both dubious journalism and overtly hostile to the subject. Counter punch is a highly partisan blog (?) news outlet (?) whatever. I havent looked at the Guardian article but, "The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires" does not inspire confidence. This is a multibillion dollar charity, cant we find better sources than some partisan hit pieces? Bonewah (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bonewah's edits yesterday (ripping out several relevant citations) are a step in the wrong direction: toward less information on this page, toward the suppression of solid reporting. Bonewah's objections to Mayer and Rich's articles regarding the Kochs seem to boil down to one word: he feels they're "partisan". I think the readers of Wikipedia trust Mayer and Rich's perspective and knowledge of the Koch Foundations more than Bonewah's. Paul Heckbert (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bonewah's take on the issues are not reliable, but Mayer's and Rich's articles are extremely partisan, and should not be considered reliable for matters about living persons, and should not be considered reliable if contrary sources can be found. I wouldn't go so far as to call them "hit pieces", but it's not far from the truth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion. However, the New Yorker and New York Times are RSs, so your personal views are not exactly relevant to the editorial task at hand. Indeed, the entire Wikipedia endeavour is premised around verifiability, not "truthiness" as seen by a particular editor. Arjuna (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mayer's articles contains much hyperbole, statements which cannot be proved or disproved, and outright unsourced gossip. Some of it might be used as a source, but we would need to be careful. You seem to be quoting from an interview with Mayer on NPR, which may reflect her personal opinion rather than her journalistic views, even if "journalism" can be distinguished from "gossip" in this case.

As for Koch Industries, the association between this subject and that one is so weak that it shouldn't be in this article even if impeccably sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite your status as an Admin, I wonder if your personal political biases (going from your own words) do not color your judgement here. Perhaps you need to examine whether or not you can truly be NPOV in this article. However, I request that you outline specifically what your objections are to each statement that you consider "hyperbole", unprovable statements, or "gossip". Let's take that approach rather than your current tactic of blanket statements and unsupported assertions. And remember that if an accusation or hypothesis is out there in the public sphere, that is by no means a definite BLP violation. If it is from a RS, then usually it is fair game. Again, you need to be explicit here. The New Yorker is a demonstrated and accepted RS, and if that is inconvenient then perhaps you should take up your case in other fora. In short, your position is simply untenable, but let's take this step by step rather than get into an RV war that could result in inadvertent 3RR violations. Best, Arjuna (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of this edit, the problem is twofold, First, the sourcing for the section titled "Lobbying for Oil, Gas, and Chemical Industries" is sourced to greenpeace and the huffington post, neither of which are anything like reliable sources. The guardian might be a reliable source, but if you read the actual article, you will see that they are only reporting what greenpeace claimed in their report. Throughout the guardian article they say "Greenpeace says" or Greenpeace accuses" or "according to greenpeace" which makes it clear that the guardian is only reporting what greenpeace has said, which puts it in the same unreliable source category as the Greenpeace report itself.

The second issue with those edits is the use of third party opinions where they are unwarranted. The anonymous 'family friend', the 'former employee', also anonymous, of course, and Jane Mayer herself all offering mere opinions. Why should we care what 2 anonymous sources and a reporter have to say about the Koch's, especially considering this isnt even an article about the Koch's themselves, but rather their family foundation.

And i havent even touched on the obvious neutrality problems with using an overtly hostile article to produce extremely biased quotes claiming the Koch's are "paranoid" and use "rednecks" to advance their "pro-corporate agenda". The neutrality issues here are so blatant that I shouldnt even have to point them out. Bonewah (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The New Yorker is generally considered a reliable source, but the context needs to be taken into account. Some of Mayer's columns in the New Yorker are reliable, but not BLP-reliable, and an NPR interview of Mayer is being quoted for some of the material, and that is not reliable except as to Mayer's views. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable, secondary sources that says that the New Yorker is unreliable in this case? Otherwise it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove the New Yorker as a source, i removed Greenpeace as a source, and it wasent just for sourcing. Please *actually* read the comments, rather than just skipping to the end. Bonewah (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Abductive is right: claiming "context" just isn't going to cut it. New Yorker is a RS, and I think to suggest that material from that article is not appropriate is simply an untenable position. Arjuna (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful reference

The citation for the sentence

The foundation also funds study groups called Koch Scholars who gather and read "an assortment of select books, movies, and podcasts surrounding the principles of a free society."

currently reference number 6, is a link to a Google search for "huntsman school wikipedia"

The text of the citation is

"Jon M. Huntsman School of Business". Wikipedia. Retrieved 4/28/2011.

This reference should be removed and a different reference should be provided or the section deleted.

Haxney (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Willie Soon

@HughD: The Guardian article states that the documents were obtained by Greenpeace, and released by Greenpeace and SPI. In further goes on to state that, "according to the documents ... [t]he astrophysicist reportedly received ... $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation." We should attribute it to the documents, not to The Guardian, which I would consider a legitimate newspaper for this purpose, not requiring attribution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should attribute it to the newspaper the Guardian, which examined and verified the documents. None of the Wikipedia editors has actually seen Or verified documents and that is not our job in first place. We report what the journalists have validated. Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We cite our source WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, not our source's sources. Our source is The Guardian. We agree The Guardian is a reliable source of a caliber which in general does not require any in-text attribution. This is very straightforward. Anyone who is interested in The Guardian's sources can click through read the source. Hugh (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear that The Guardian validated (or could validate) the documents; they would have to trust that Greenpeace provided the documents they (Greenpeace) obtained. Nonetheless, we shouldn't say "according to The Guardian", as that would imply some doubt as to whether they got it right. Either attribute it as "according to the documents", or with no attribution at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We agree no attribution is necessary, thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

letter by scientists re koch natural history museum support

I added the thing. User:Rjensen reverted the edit, saying no wp:rs used. fine. pretty aggressive though- could have A) looked for one, B)flagged it, esp if he knew about the issue. i readded the info with a WP : RS. Next thing Rjensen adds a paragraph with editorializing language and WP:Synth. i remove "however" and teh word rejecting alleagtion as not per ref. the source says: "Randall Kremer, spokesman for the Smithsonian Natural History museum, said both exhibits deal in great detail with the impacts of climate change. And that Koch, and others on the board, are well aware of that.Kremer told the Loop that they wouldn’t be supporting the museum if they “did not understand the science behind our public programs.” (The Smithsonian has been unequivocal in its belief that climate change is manmade.)"

Rjensen reverts again (!!) never starting a talk page post. the formulation "rejected the allegation"needs to be sourced, as its not in the source. since rjensen doesnt seem to like flags i wont use them.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post contacted the Smithsonian and it provided the rebuttal immediately. Note that Wuerzele saw the rebuttal in the article he used and also the official Koch foundation statement, then deliberately left them out in order to emphasize his personal POV in attacking the foundation and not allowing a response. That is heavy-handed POV editing and a violation of the Wikipedia rule that editors should try to provide a balanced statement of any controversy. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have thanked you for your selfreversal. I acted according to guidelines. I stayed with the source. I decline the allegation of pov editing, although a case could be made that you User:Rjensen pursued some. glad we talked!--Wuerzele (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

you deliberately excluded the defense by Smithsonian and Koch and now claim you have no POV--that you are neutral between Koch and the critics???? Rjensen (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

look, you can continue to fight here if you want but i see the issue as resolved. i neither delibearately excluded nor did i delete what you called "the defense by Smithsonian and Koch". i also dont think their response (which is a standard verbage for whatever hot water situation ) makes this more balanced or npov. I think you see the ghosts of pov, that you called. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation and the Knowledge and Progress Fund

...are not on the "official" Koch family foundation website. Do we want to let the Kochs edit this article, or can we include them? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the Lambe Foundation, but the only credible or verifiable connection between the Kochs and the "Knowledge and Progress Fund" is that Koch is chairman. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Arthur. Yes, Charles Koch is the chairman of the board of directors of KPI, and a member of Charles Koch's family, his wife, is a member of the board of directors of KPI. Thanks for holding off on reverting. May I ask, why did you not also tag the Lambe Foundation for "relevance"? Hugh (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Koch (either brother) is undoubtedly on the board of dozens of foundations. Whether his being president is an adequate connection is unclrar. As for the Lambe Foindation, the article says he founded it.

That being said, the question of whether this article should include not-overtly-political foundations in the Koch network (however defined), or just the ones considered by the Kochs to be among the Koch Foundations, is not clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"unclear" I agree. I don't think a new article, with a scope limited to the foundations the Koch family choose to publicly acknowledge on a "Koch Family Foundations" website of their own construction, would pass muster with respect to WP:PROMO. List articles are expected to include a clear stmt of scope, the criteria used to include/exclude an item, I agree that is missing here. Charles took over the Lambe Foundation when Lambe passed, so I don't think "founded by a Koch" is the distinguishing criteria. Hugh (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)