Talk:Koch network/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

New York Times resource, regarding Richard A. Muller / Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature support

As related to Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family/Archive_2 ... Global Warming Indeed Under Way, Contrarian Panel Says October 20, 2011, 3:08 PM ... A team at the University of California Berkeley that set out to test the temperature data underlying the consensus on global warming has concluded that the mainstream estimate of the rise in the earth’s surface temperature since 1950 is indeed accurate. It has warmed about 1 degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), the researchers say. The data sets and research papers are here, along with charts and a video. See http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

For related wikipedia discussion, see Talk:Global_warming#New_study_.28from_BEST.29_confirms_warming_trend

99.35.15.107 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant to Koch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevant per LA Times ... Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family/Archive_2#Add_Los_Angeles_Times_source (see above) ... in particular Koch Industries billions. 99.109.126.95 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the section. EVERYONE agrees it's not relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispense with the Royal we Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. If you are Arthur Rubin, there isn't even noble lineage shown on that article. This is Wikipedia. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with idioms. It's not the "royal we". It's an entirely different fallacy. Still, there is little support (and no rational support) for relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family/Archive_2#LA_Times more specifically. 99.181.157.189 (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A little more relevant, but there's no consensus there to include. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with AR. It is relevant. It is documented. It is in the media. It is worthy of a mention. Not a heavy-handed one, but worthy nonetheless. AR, you would do well to dispense with the facile imperious attitude that assumes you are somehow uniquely positioned to determine what constitutes "rational". Arjuna (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Special:Contributions/Arjuna909. 141.218.36.147 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So what do you want to say? Something like, "In addition to its political activities, the Koch family has provided funding for scientific research, such as the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project"?

—WWoods (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very late here so I'm not at my most brilliant, but something like, "In addition to their overt political activities, the Koch family has provided funding for various scientific research initiatives and education programs. For example, some critics have questioned whether their support of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project may have been motivated by the Kochs' desire to 'debunk' mainstream climate science - but eventually that study concluded that global warming is in fact real. The Kochs have also been generous funders to other research and scientific education programs that are non-political in nature, such as NOVA and the Smithsonian Institution." Not perfect, but trying to be fair/NPOV to a fact that is "out there" in the mediaverse. Arjuna (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing the POINTy bits (referring to "overt" with its clear implication that other activities are "covert", the use of the ever-popular "some critics" who are not named, the implication of "may have been motivated" which is an opinion ill-suited for a BLP, "that global warming is in fact real" when the suggestion is that they confirmed data showing warming post-1800, and nothing else, and the implication that BEST was "political in nature" by referring to other funding as "non-political in nature" - making quite clear exactly what the pointy bits were - cheers - Collect (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC))) :

The Kochs have funded various scientific initiatives and education programs, including the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project which concluded that the temperature of the Earth has risen since 1800 in line with studies made by climate change scientists. They have also funded NOVA and the Smithsonian.

The use of "overt" implies "covert" and the editorialization about BEST is not warranted in a BLP article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

...Removing the POINTy bits...

It's unfortunate that User:Collect is incapable of contributing to this talk page without making wildly inaccurate attacks on other editors. — goethean ॐ 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that any editor would attack another for pointing out that using "overt" is POINTy wording, and that may have been motivated by the Kochs' desire to 'debunk' mainstream climate science - but eventually that study concluded that global warming is in fact real. is a misuse of what the source states. Neither is an attack on an editor, but is an attack on the proposed verbiage - which must conform to WP:BLP. The wording I presented is accurate and in conformance with what the sources state as fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: your claim is that by suggesting that we use the word "overt" in the article, User:Arjuna909 has violated the Wikipedia policy against disrupting Wikipdia in order to make a point? — goethean ॐ 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Golly, if I didn't know better, I'd think that I must have hit a nerve. I think it should be obvious that I was trying to be fair and acting in good faith; it's a shame that Collect seems to not want to recognize this. We can discuss what the right word might be if "overt" isn't it, but I don't think "pointy" means what he think it means - because my understanding of the word "overt" does not connote something surreptitious. The sense of meaning I was trying to convey is "out in the open", as opposed to the kind of funding that (not only the Kochs) achieve through various indirect methods. My proposed language is certainly is not "editorializing", so with all due respect I think Collect would benefit from re-reading Wikipedia:AGF, among other policy guidelines. Best, Arjuna (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) All I did was propose WP:BLP compliant language based on what the source actually states. If you find that position somehow objectionable, so be it. But WP policy seems to conform with my position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you accused an editor of disrupting Wikipedia. I have a much better idea now of the seriousness with which I should take your comments: none. — goethean ॐ 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No - I said some language in an edit was pointy. Get this straight - I am avoiding "dramuh" and that is that. Your posts seem, alas, to be aimed quite differently. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly right. In response to an editor's sincere suggestion, you made an outrageously aggressive and transparently false attack on that editor. An attack which demonstrates the tremendous lack of seriousness with which your comments should be taken. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your dramuh posts do not help anyone since my post was clearly and specifically aimed at getting a rational edit made on the article. Have a cup of tea, please! Collect (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect is quite correct; we would need a separate reliable source that Koch's funding of BEST is political, and "overt" must be attributed to that source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we have entered strawman territory. I am NOT saying that the article should say that Koch funding of BEST is political - that would indeed be impossible to document and thus cite (and which I would obviously agree is inappropriate); I am saying that it is widely reported that this (Koch funding was motivated by their interest in "disproving" climate science) is a fairly common perception among climate scientists and many in the media. Big difference. One is a statement that is inherently unverifiable, the other - being a meta-observation - is not. Arjuna (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The "meta-observation" is anonymous opinion at best. See WP:BLP. The edit I suggested is in full compliance with Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think reporting what the media perceives as the Koch's motivation is problematic for a number of reasons. Lets just stick with the facts. Bonewah (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(od) See List of fallacies ... no "royal we". 99.35.14.164 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Exactly. Looking over this thread, I never said "we", so there can't be a royal we. I did misuse and emphasize "everyone". On the other hand, your argument is best expressed as the argument from repetition, you keep repeating the argument until everyone gives up responding, and then claim consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The climate change section was deleted. I restored it. It is a political issue.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be a political issue, but there is no reliable claim (even by Mayer) that the funding of BEST or of Soon is specifically political. The paragraph needs more caveats to be NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Off Topic, this article is about the Koch Family
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
resource Detroit Span Owner Keeps Canada Crossing With Koch Aid September 16, 2011 in Bloomberg BusinessWeek by Chris Christoff; regarding "Matty" Manuel Moroun (who beat out Warren Buffett to buy the Ambassador Bridge more than three decades ago) and son's fight against Governor of Michigan Rick Snyder's New International Trade Crossing bridge plans. Excerpt ... At stake in the fight, which has drawn in diplomats, the Tea-Party-backing Koch brothers and residents of one of Detroit’s poorest neighborhoods, is control of a crossing that carries one-quarter of the truck commerce between the U.S. and Canada and more than 7 million vehicles a year, according to the Public Border Operators Association. “This is Canada’s No. 1 national infrastructure priority,” Roy Norton, the nation’s consul general in Detroit, said in a phone interview. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Here is the basis for the Koch connection in that article The battle has spread as far as Toronto, where Moroun paid for television ads. Fox TV commentator Dick Morris said in an interview with WJR-AM radio in March that Moroun had hired him to advise the campaign. Americans for Prosperity, the free- market advocacy group founded by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, conducted a public relations campaign, including mass mailings to voters. Thats it, thats the connection. Seems a bit thin to include here. Bonewah (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the contribution User:Bonewah (Special:Contributions/Bonewah). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Potential update Talk:Ambassador Bridge#Forbes.com resource, with article's internal links included ... jailed. 99.181.131.215 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Bloomberg.com potential resources http://topics.bloomberg.com/koch-industries/ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/koch-iran-link-causes-candidate-to-send-contributions-to-charity.html by Kristin Jensen, October 19, 2011 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html by Asjylyn Loder and David Evans - Oct 3, 2011 1:28 PM ET Bloomberg Markets Magazine, excerpt ... Such a probe would fall under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 1977 law that makes it illegal for companies and their subsidiaries to pay bribes to government officials and employees of state-owned companies. Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney says the agency won’t confirm or deny the existence of any investigation. While Koch-Glitsch was conducting its internal probe of illicit payments for contracts, the U.S. government was investigating Koch’s European unit on another front: sales to Iran. http://www.bloomberg.com/video/76441616/ video Oct. 3 Koch Industries Inc. is a global industrial company run by brothers Charles and David Koch. Bloomberg Markets magazine's November issue examines some of the company's questionable practices and political lobbying (Peter Cook reports). 99.190.87.173 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was this section removed, Hows that? not enough.

Praise by Obama administration

With the criticism has also come praise from the Obama administration for companies owned by the Koch Brothers. In Fall of 2010, Koch-owned Flint Hills Resources built an agreement between the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in a regulation dispute. "The EPA under President Obama has also praised Koch subsidiaries Georgia-Pacific and Invista for their cooperation with the agency. Georgia-Pacific even won an award from the EPA in 2009.".

99.35.14.94 (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That material is not currently in the article. What point is being made here?   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Article merged or deleted

This article seems like it should be merged back into the various Koch articles. There is nothing like this "political activities of X family" anywhere else on Wikipedia. Much of what is being described as "political" activities is not generally described as political activities elsewhere. ( e.g. contributing to think tanks.) George Soros' famous donations to similar types of organizations are listed on his main article under the broad heading "Philanthropy" and in areas of campaign activities the specific sub-heading "political donations and activism". That seems a better approach than this.Capitalismojo (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

EPA

• With the criticism has also come praise from the Obama administration for companies owned by the Koch Brothers. In Fall of 2010, Koch-owned Flint Hills Resources built an agreement between the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in a regulation dispute. "The EPA under President Obama has also praised Koch subsidiaries Georgia-Pacific and Invista for their cooperation with the agency. Georgia-Pacific even won an award from the EPA in 2009.".

In what way are these political activities of the Koch family?   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Id say that very little of the 'criticism' section qualifies as 'political activities of the Koch family'. Bonewah (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about this material. Why did you restore it when someone deleted it?   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's no explanation for the relevance of this material to this article I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If its your intention to remove this material, then I ask that you remove the whole 'criticism' section as none of it is really political activities of the Koch family. Bonewah (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the August 30, 2010, New Yorker, Jane Mayer writes that "As their fortunes grew, Charles and David Koch became the primary underwriters of hard-line libertarian politics in America."[5] The article states the Koch brothers fund a multitude of groups opposed to government in general and Obama administration policies in particular.
• Charles, along with his brother, David, have been criticised by members of the Obama administration for their political spending.
• Kimberly O. Dennis, of the Searle Freedom Trust, a libertarian foundation, suggests that the Kochs are acting against their economic interest in promoting "getting government out of the business of running the economy. If they were truly interested in protecting their profits, they wouldn’t be spending so much to shrink government; they’d be looking for a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Their funding is devoted to promoting free-market capitalism, not crony capitalism."[44]

Those all seem to concern political activities.   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a single "Koch brothers"-related article without extensive coverage of the Mayer article? Nope - Wikipedia is not here to insert the exact same material into every possible article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Material from Mayers' article on the Koch family's political activities are relevant here. What is extraordinary is that the Mayer material is 53 words long while the rebuttal is 355 words. Usually the original assertion gets at least as much space as the rebuttal.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would ask Mr. Collect if there is a single source critical of the Koch's that he and Mr. Squirrel don't find biased, alastrovia. (VeritasEnResPublica (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC))

Try reading my posts before making invalid assertions about me as an editor. Mayer's work is now in essentially every Koch-related article - which is contrary to common sense. We do not iterate the same material in every conceivable article. Even if it is biassed or not biassed - and I made no post suggesting that "bias" is here present - only that the material is already present at sufficient lenth in sufficient articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthropogenic Global Warming

I removed the Guardian article that stated that $200,000 had been given to the Heartland Institute for global warming activities. The NY Times in a more recent article states that it was $25,000 for healthcare policy. The Koch Foundation has also issued a press release that says they only gave $25,000 in 2011. If interested there is quite a bit about this at the Heartland article and talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Palm Beach Post article

My post stating that Mr. Koch was supporting Governor Walker's efforts in Wisconsin was deleted because it wasn't "factual". Here is the info from the ref (Palm Beach Post)

"Asked about his efforts to sway public opinion, Koch acknowledges his group is hard at work in places such as Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker is facing off with public unions and grappling with a likely recall vote."We're helping him, as we should. We've gotten pretty good at this over the years," he says."We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more."By "we" he says he means Americans for Prosperity, which is spending about $700,000 on an "It's working" television ad buy in the state. It credits Walker's public pension and union overhaul with giving school districts the first surpluses they've seen in years. The unions and the left see things differently.

My line addition might not have been artful but it was factual and in line with the source.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo is not RS. We must find another ref if this is in the article.Capitalismojo (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite? — goethean ॐ 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"By 'we' he means ..." is an opinion for sure. Find a better RS source for this sort of claim. Collect (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Who do you take Koch to be referring to? — goethean ॐ 00:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not need to "take" ot for anything - our job is to use what the reliable sources actually state and not to give what we "know" is the "truth" in an article. Where a source gives an opinion, we state it as an opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How can someone saying they support someone else be that person's "opinion"? Do you think that Koch may be mistaken about whom he supports? TFD (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to "know" the "truth." It is only up to us to use reliable sources properly - making claims explicitly backed in the source, and not making claims not in the source. Where a statement is one of opinion, it is citable as an opinion and not as a "fact." Is there something in this sentence which you have a problem understanding? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism by Obama administration

The content in this section is a huge stretch and clear case of WP:COATRACK. It is the result of someone (or multiple people) pushing their political agenda on Wikipedia. It does not belong here and I am removing it from the article.

The first item: "In an August 2010 background briefing, economist Austan Goolsbee, an administration official, accused Koch Industries of paying no corporate income tax." The article actually states that Goolsbee "falsely alleged" that they paid no corporate income tax. The article briefly mentions this as one of many examples of the left "demonizing" the Koch's. The fact that someone cherry-picked that quote to include in this Wikipedia entry in order to insinuate that the Koch's are tax-evaders, even though the article states it was false, seems like another attempt to demonize them.

The second item: "In a September 23, 2010 op-ed in The Washington Post, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod accused Americans for Prosperity of being a "front group" that was "hijacking our elections" by "promot[ing] Republican candidates who support their right-wing agenda and corporate interests."" First off, it is an opinion piece. While it is okay in some cases to use an opinion piece, according to WP:RS, it must "explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion". This section does not do that since it is attributing the criticism to "the Obama administration" as a whole. Aside from that, the op-ed is not even criticizing the Koch family, it is criticizing Americans for Prosperity, and playing the transitive property game is nothing but WP:COATRACK.

These two items do not belong here and are not sufficient to claim that "Charles and David Koch, have both been criticized by members of the Obama administration." AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this?

In a September 23, 2010 op-ed in The Washington Post, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod wrote that the Koch brothers were "billionaire oilmen secretly underwriting what the public has been told is a grass-roots movement for change in Washington."

— goethean ॐ 19:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, right before the quote you presented, the author cites and links to the Mayer article: “the New Yorker magazine recently revealed that this group has been quietly guiding the organizing efforts of the Tea Party -- in other words, billionaire oilmen secretly underwriting what the public has been told is a grass-roots movement for change in Washington.” So he is just summarizing in his own words what he took from the Mayer article. It's already been pointed out that the Mayer article shouldn't be considered reliable and Axelrod is basing his opinion on it in that quote. Plus, content about the Mayer article already takes up a huge chunk of the Political activities of the Koch family page. I don’t think we need to add more to that section. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, there isn't that much mention to their political activities at all, and your ad hoc attacks on any sources critical of the subject reeks of bias, cheers to that industry hacks. (VeritasEnResPublica (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC))

This article is about (and titled) Political activities of the Koch family. How can you claim that "there isn't that much mention to their political activities at all"? I simply explained with logic, reason, and evidence that some information and quotes were misrepresented, causing a section of the article to be less than neutral. I've made no "attacks" on sources or other editors. It appears as if you have only created an account for the purpose of making personal attacks on editors who don't share the same opinions as you. If you'd like to work on improving articles, you need to cease making personal attacks and become familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly WP:Civility. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This Article is Pure Synthesis Prohibited by Wikipedia Rules

Clear violation -- should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's handled right, I think this article could be used to actually educate people. Yeah. I agree. A lot of this article has been synthesized. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

Jane argued....

Although not neutral, it seems a more accurate description than Jane Mayer said.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Expect a Fight

I've added a Controversy section. Expect a fight if you want to take it out. I expect there are any number of Tea-Party activists trolling this article. If you take my edit out, THAT COUNTS AS 1 REVERT. Please keep the 3RR in mind when you start editing. I'm already waging a battle on another wikipedia site in relation to lobbying. I'll do it here too.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

There is a guideline (Wikipedia:Criticism#Controversy articles and sections) against including "Controversy" sections, but it's probably a good idea here, per WP:IAR. On the other hand, the paragraph is still a misquote of the source. See the discussions on the (incorrect) talk page Talk:Koch family for more information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the sourced information should be scattered into the appropriate sections of this article, and still should not appear in Koch family, although parts might appear in Koch Industries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Below is a copy/past of Arthur Rubin last suggestion on the Koch family Talk page. If copy/pasting this is a violation of WP policy, let me know and I'll recreate it differently. I just figure this is the most accurate way to avoid communication break-downs.

"If you were remaining flexible, you would start by attempting to put the information into the correct article, not this one. Or aren't you familiar with the concept behind the {{main}} tag?

Still, the following facts are covered by the article:

1. Koch Industries contributed $20 million to political interests in 2008, and $20.5 million over the next two years.

   See caveat below

   The article also said it had $100 billion of revenue in 2009; I think we are allowed to combine those to say that lobbying expenses are around 0.02% of revenue, but I'm not sure.

2. Koch Industries employs 30 registered lobbyists.

   Actually, the article doesn't say that, it says The Koch's companies, but I'd be willing to let that one go.

3. Koch Industries has lobbied to affect more than 100 pieces of federal legislation.

   "to the advantage of their industry interests" is speculation, and some of the "changes" were before the legislation was introduced, so "change" is not the correct term.

4. Koch Industries has lobbied to loosen regulations on toxic materials such as dioxins, benzene, and asbestos."

   Stronger and weaker than what you wrote: Koch Industries has lobbied to loosen regulations and/or change federal legislation governing potentially poisonous materials like dioxins, benzene and asbestos.

5. The Kochs, directly and indirectly, have donated to foundations which promote efforts to discredit climate change science.

   Actually, I can't find anywhere where they specifically lobbied against "carbon emissions", and the article makes a more subtle statement on the funding of think tanks. You may be right about carbon emissions, though.

6. They have lobbied to prevent increased regulations on financial securities, such as petroleum-based derivatives.

   The articles doesn't say they were successful, and doesn't indicate who "they" are, (the Kochs, Koch Foundations, or Koch Industries)

   Note also that you need to add the correct Wikilink for "derivatives", namely Derivative (finance).

7. ... and nothing here, related to your speculation:

   Wherever a law touched on a Koch corporate interests, the company's lobbyists were there trying to subvert, retard or even roll-back any attempt at regulation."

End of section. I'll add to this in a shortly coming input below--XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

Maybe some of those things could be added to relevant parts of the article, but this one source (which is of unclear reliability) should not warrant the creation of a controversy section. I don't think it should be included in the page before more discussion takes place since the neutrality and reliability is in question. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Although some of been chastised for copying comments, I think you've done a good job of indicating the quoting, and it should be here, anyway. Thank you, XB70. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As to section 1. I can appreciate your concern as to placing this into relative terms in so far as how the Koch's would see it. I think would be fair to say a statement containing ≈ "this is 0.02% of Koch Ind. gross revenue" is an attempt to minimalize the figure of $20.5 million. Just as the term "Wherever a law touched on a Koch corporate interests, the company's lobbyists were there trying to subvert, retard or even roll-back any attempt at regulation." is a phrase meant to maximize pathos against the Koch's. Let's see here. Recommend:

"Although still a small fraction of Koch Industries gross revenue (Approx. $100 Billion Ann.), $20. million was spent on lobbying efforts in 2008 and $20.5 was spent over the course of the following two years."

As to section 2. I appreciate that concession and will return one, as well.

"In 2010 the firm employed 30 registered lobbyists."

As to section 3. Agreed with proposed verbatim.

"Koch Industries has lobbied to affect more than 100 pieces of federal legislation."

As to section 4. Concession granted. I know that many materials and chemicals are potentially toxic. BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE doesn't mean they aren't still safely useful. When encased, asbestos is safe, useful and inexpensive. Plus, it's a rock in its natural state. Very little goes into making that rock a serviceable material. I think we need to make a conjunctive phrase here so we don't always repeat "Koch Industries, Koch Industries, Koch Industries." Laborious reading. How about.

"...including lobbying to loosen regulations on potentially toxic materials such as dioxins, benzene, and asbestos."

As to section 5. From the article "the Kochs have donated several million dollars in recent years to think tanks and groups that have sought to discredit climate science and EPA’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases." and, "So it is not surprising that, when the Obama administration and the Democrats on Capitol Hill proposed to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases in recent years, Koch Industries responded with a fervent counteroffensive.

“Oppose government mandates on carbon reduction provisions … [and] provisions related to climate change, and oppose entire bill,” Koch lobbyist Robert P. Hall wrote, listing his goals on the 2008 lobbying disclosure form" Both bases I think have been touched upon in the article.

Sustain - "The Kochs, directly and indirectly, have donated to foundations which promote efforts to discredit climate change science."

As to section 6: Believe it or not, I know they were successful on a personal level through watching a news report on CNN about that portion of the Dodd-Frank Act being emasculated by Koch attorneys. I added that when a user cried "copy/paste" in an attempt to throw the edit out entirely. But, you're right. It doesn't say that in the article. Moving on, I think "they" the article writers are using the term "they" in an attempt to keep from making for tedious reading and always having to beat the "Koch _______" drum of verbatim repetition. But, would it be fare to say,

"Koch interests have lobbied to prevent increased regulations on financial securities, such as petroleum-based derivatives." I'll correct the wikilink.

As to section 7. I agree that the way it is written, it casts a decided, editorial aspect to the statement. The statement does, however, bring up an important point; that being Big Koch lobbies against or for anything that might have a detrimental effect on its profitabilities. There is no way to ground this statement into a provable phrase, other than the full irrefutable evidence brought to light in the cited article. One could evoke the argument, "That's what the link to the article in the reference section is there for, to allow people to read the article for themselves." I think there is no way to rewrite a very important statement in a wiki-safe edit. Therefore, I second having the phrase completely struck from the edit.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

@ AdventurousSquirrel Article neutrality was argued ad nauseum on the Koch family talk page. When originally introduced by me, the citation was linked to an article by The Guardian newspaper in England. The newspaper has a pedigree going back to the 1800's and has never had accusations of bias lodged against it of any palpable consequence. Nonetheless, the editorial type format that the article appeared in was found objectionable by Arthur Rubin. It was recommended by a third party that the article now sited would better meet both of our demands. On breaking the paragraph up - I'm open to recommendations which wouldn't strand the elements having them lose their context. Also, please don't remove this section. It's more than adequately tagged for the short time it appears it will take to reach agreements. We all appear to be quite proactive not only in timeliness, but also in our determination to work out our disagreements in decisions that will make this a better article in the end. I have the next few days off and will be here until this is finished so as to make us all happy.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

It seems that a lot of the points made in the paragraph, especially the sentences in ‘section 5’ above, are wp:synthesis. I don’t believe that this source, standing alone, is reliable to create a controversy section. In the source they say that “Koch had $100 billion in revenues in 2009 — on a par with corporate giants like IBM or Verizon — and stood a close second to Cargill Inc. on the list of the largest private US companies.” Right after that they say, “Last year, Koch Industries ranked in the top five — roughly on a par with BP and Royal Dutch Shell — in lobbying expenses among oil and gas companies.” So if Koch is the second largest private company ever, but only in the top five in lobbying expenses ‘’among oil and gas companies’’ (not top 5 out of all companies, just oil and gas), then where is the long essay on how much all those other companies are lobbying? Why is it labeled controversy that Koch Industries lobbies when they lobby just as much or less than other similar companies?

This source, the Center for Public Integrity, has its stated mission as: "to reveal abuses of power, corruption and dereliction of duty by powerful public and private institutions in order to cause them to operate with honesty, integrity, accountability and to put the public interest first.” The Koch’s are simply the easiest target for them to appear as if they are succeeding in their mission because the public has heard of them and they are often vilified by media. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, while it seems that you've been here a while, XB70Valyrie, it seems like you could still benefit from reading up on a lot of WP policies and guidelines. There are a lot of problems with the paragraph you are adding and making it into a 'Controversy' section automatically makes it a controversial edit. Controversial edits should be discussed thoroughly on the talk page before being added into the article. Furthermore, this is canvassing and is against Wikipedia policy. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: Claimed Synthases in Section 5. Explain how virtually quoting the article is synthases. I deal in a highly regulated industry in my daily life. I'm familiar with reading statutes governing highly complex issues. But, It's your argument. It's incumbent upon you to accurately make it. Kindly copy/paste the exact passage you're citing. I've read the synthases article before, btw.

RE: Only a single citation: Insofar as a stand alone source; okay, I'll add The Guardian citation to it as well. We now have two. And remember, I was willing to entertain placing the content of the edit throughout the article. Where did that recommendation go? Doesn't seem you care to explore a granted concession. What? Have you now reconsidered how easy it was to come to terms with me and the impact it would have on your article?

Here's the way I see this. An aircraft on approach drops down an addition 100' below the DA (decision altitude) on an approach. That's the point at which, visibility allowing, the pilot needs to make a final decision as to if they should land the airplane or go-around. An FAA official on the ground sees this additional decent. He meets the co-pilot out on the ramp. He walks up to the co-pilot and blusters, "Br-brrgh. In the interest of safety, I'm going to have to write you a violation. You dropped below minimums on that approach, by a full 100'." The co-pilot, having been at the controls, scratches his head. Over-hearing the conversation, the captain of the flight quickly rifles through his Federal Aviation Regulations, "Excuse me." the captain interjects, "According to §91.126(b)(iii) we are allowed to descend even to 100' above Touchdown Zone Elevation if we have the runway approach lights in sight when reaching decision altitude. We did." He points the the text. What just happened was an attempt at enforcement AdventurousSquirrel. The FAA inspector failed in meeting his requirements to issue a citation he initiated based on his initial claim. Let's continue with the story. Angered by the captains accurate rebuttal the FAA inspector continues, "Show me your Maintenance Logs, Medical Certificate and FCC Radio Operators License!" See now, the FAA inspector has gone from rightfully looking out for the safety of the traveling public to maliciously causing problems for the crew, and the airline, in the light of his failure. This can cost him his job. Behind this new attempt lies agenda. Pride. Not a sense of right and wrong, but anger. I'm not going to sit here and allow you to filibuster your way to a dead-lock or even a stall. Oh no. The longer you do argue, and the more positions you take, the more you expose yourself. But as you've seen, I'm a reasonable man. I'm willing to talk about your positions up to this point.

RE: Mission Statement It's not The Center for Public Integrity's fault that Koch Industries gives them as much material as they do. Now, why would the Koch's be vilified by the media?? I'll tell you what. I don't have to explain why it is that the media does what they do, says what they say, or writes what it write. It sounds to me like you need to write a letter to the editor because they don't share your opinion of Big Koch. Either way, it has no baring on my edit.

Yeah. So, I noticed you're REAL interested in my background looking for anything that could impeach credibility or be used a leverage. Your research selectivity honestly disappoints me. It would appear you are missing the forest from the trees. Here. Let me show you the forest at the bottom of my talk page. User talk:XB70Valyrie.

Whereas some of the things I do may be done out of shear ignorance in attempts to learn, I really don't think there's any excuse for making a practice out of it. And, my actual contributions to wikipedia given the number of edits and time I've spent here, I would believe allow me a tiny bit of latitude to make some mistakes.

Now. I hate to have to put it this way, but there really is no other way. Insofar as I'm concerned, you have made the last of your arguments which I am willing to entertain. Once we have, in good faith, come to settlements on them. We're done. I'm not going to let you bring up one argument, after another, after another, after another, like an overzealous FAA inspector angry at a captain, and just like Arthur Rubin tried on the Koch family article talk page. Once we recognized our true concerns, progress has developed rapidly. I'm still awaiting his reply on the final copy. If that is not your intent, then I apologize for any rush to judgement. Nevertheless, you're quickly beating a path in that direction. Your editing background, I searched as well. You seem to be pretty fair. So, considering that. Let's move forward. It will be my pleasure.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

You come in here screaming for a fight and then add a controversy section. I am sorry but you will have to do a better job of explaining why you can go against WP policies and guidelines against controversy sections. Arzel (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't come in here screaming for a fight. I came in here expecting one. And, here again, someone mentions a policy they claim I'm in violation of. Cite it. Copy/paste it in here. Right below my words here. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

I see no reason to repeat what has already been posted above. Especially to someone with an attitude like yourself. Arzel (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I simply wont hold any objection as legitimate unless the passages are pointed to, in this Talk Page. The interests of keeping this page as friendly to the Big Koch aren't going to succeed at filibustering their way to exclusion of relevant, well cited verbatim by throwing up clouds of nebulous argument open to interpretation. If these objections are so well founded, why do those making them have such trouble quoting the very passages upon which they make their arguments? If they're such good arguments, prove it. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

I have to agree with Arzel that it seems you are intent on inciting argument which is less effective than calmly discussing the article. I’ll ignore your personal attacks against me and focus on the issue, which is the controversy section you wish to add, and the source being used for it.

I admit that I misread the piece you had about section 5. I thought you were quoting the paragraph that you wanted to include in this article, not the source. Phrases like “So it’s not surprising that…” generally are used as part of synthesis.

I’m not sure what makes you claim that I am continually changing my argument or bringing in new ones (XB70:“you bring up one argument, after another, after another, after another, like an overzealous FAA inspector angry at a captain”). I’ve only made two posts regarding this. In the first one I mentioned that the reliability of the source was unclear. After I looked into the source more, I stated my belief that the source was not reliable for adding controversy. In this, my third post, I have the same argument and more evidence. The Wikipedia page for Center for Public Integrity has a criticism section, with several sources, saying it has been referred to as a “liberal group” and “has been accused of bias towards left-wing political causes.” As I suspected, the source is biased, and therefore, should not be used to create a controversy section in this article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made concession on:

• Changing the citation
• Moving the verbatim from the Koch family article to this one.
• Rewriting my original edit.
• Break up my edit into what others find more relevant sections

In return what have you POV editors yielded on? Nothing. Arzel, you're right. I have an attitude; a good one. An attitude predicated on the very cornerstone of Wikipedia edit, Good Faith. All you people attempt to do it raise objections on infinitesimal detail only a firmly entrenched partisan editor could find. All this being said, you people need to reassess your own attitudes and stop throwing stone. Until the time where I can see that "you're" (plural) owning your problem, I'm through making concessions.

I see some posts were made while I created this one. I'll read those and continue from there.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

I now read the last post by AdventurousSquirrel. It's time for "the opposition" to get creative and start offering some solutions. Here's one. Change the section name to "Criticisms". Outside of that, I'm done being creative. You have The Floor. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

You, XB70Valyrie, are accusing me of edit warring? How can you possibly justify that when I reverted you once saying to discuss it on the talk page, and then I used the talk page for discussion. You have been reverted multiple times by a variety of editors. YOU are the one edit warring. You have no arguments for the controversial edits you want to make, and you are making personal attacks and engaging in edit wars. You just said that your most creative solution you have to offer is to change the section title from Controversy to Criticism. That in no way addresses the problems with the content you wish to add. So if that is your most creative solution, this discussion is over, and you must cease from reverting other editors. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I, like you, have now have adopted a zero-tolerance policy.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

BTW: here's the complete sum total of your creativity and problem solving thus far AdventurousSquirrel.

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

______________________. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

Let the record show that AdventurousSquirrel has once again reverted after being warned about edit warring. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

Do you think I was born yesterday AdventurousSquirrel? Do you think I don't see EXACTLY what's going on here in your article "tag team" of endless disputes! Just like Arthur Rubin, You had your chance to dispute my edit. You were wrong. And now all you can do is field one disagreement after another, after another, after another, after another, after another, after another, instead of being constructive and problem solve. You are in egregious violation of Wikipedia cornerstone policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith! And the rule of Common Sense. Which is intended to end edit wars before they become such.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)(banned editor)

I reverted your addition of the controversy section once, asking that you discuss it on the talk page. That is not edit warring. Reverting multiple editors multiple times is edit warring. That is exactly what you have done on this page. I am doing my best to be civil here, but your ridiculous accusations are making it difficult. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, why all the anger? You come in here acting like a child and are pissed off at others because your temper tantrum isn't getting the result you want? Take a deep breath, leave the attitude at home and discuss in an adult manner. Right now I basically feel like ignoring everything you say because of your attitude from the start. AGF works both ways, and your first statement clearly implies that you have no assumption of good faith regarding anyone that disagrees with you. Arzel (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. When you walk into a bar looking for a fight you should expect to get kicked out by the doormen. When you storm onto a WP article and literally tell people to "Expect a Fight" you've indicated that you probably have a WP:COI and I don't expect most editors to waste their time fighting with you (mostly because most of us aren't here to fight). SÆdon^talk 23:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)\

To answer Arzel and in doing so SÆdon as well, I do not take to gaming Wikipedia lightly. Especially when I find myself involved with those editors doing so. Who's gaming wikipedia? Firstly; Arthur Rubin. Have you looked at the laundry list of violations this "admin." has racked up? Deleting other users posts on talk pages, tag team reverting, blocking, edit warring, being blocked etc. etc. etc. A short review of the section on my talk, brought to me by an IP editor too afraid to use their actual user-account informed me of his nefarious record here on Wikipedia. I refuse to walk into a known hostile article with hostile editors waiting to pounce like Subject Lurkers. Who set this precedent of a hostile editing environment? Arthur Rubin, whose repeated rule-busting and counter-productive, antagonistic dancing around the issues leads only to toxic situations like this. I am NOT a push-over. Further, the editors in question, Arzel and AdventurousSquirrel make zero suggestions or concessions, oh but the "undo" button never fails to escape their attention. How many times do I have to say this? These editors have the same stone-wall tactics and bad attitudes responsible for the grid lock in Washington D.C. where only the people/Wikipeia viewer are/is made to suffer. This is why, people like Arthur Rubin should not be a Wikipedia admin., this is why people like Arthur Rubin should not even so much as be Wikipedians. As of now, I will be writing an email to Wikipedia management and demanding his permanent dismissal and subsequent blocking of his most used IP. By the way, it has not escaped me that you haven't made one mention of the inability of either AdventurousSquirrel or Arzel violations of Common Sense or Wikipedia:Assume good faith cornerstones. Have you read the battle that occurred in the Koch Family talk page? Like a good (and apparently "stupid") little Wikipedian, I'm trying to problem solve and placate these obvious POV editors wants, needs, desires and demands and I am rewarded by being given nothing in return. Even though, as stated before and I'll state it again, they enter negotiations with a round of ridiculous arguments, easily explained away then only to return with 3 more for every one I argue down. Wikipedia is one of the most "Gamed" websites there is. The only reason I wont quit is because I know doing so would only go to make users like the ones stated above jovial with relief that their POV pushing may continue un-disrupted.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

In the light of my continued and ignored insistence that the subjects concerned cite their arguments in Wikipedia rules and they simply refuse to, here's how it's done.

Pertaining to Arthur Rubin, AdventurousSquirrel and Arzel. I will not be Gamed. RE: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." That's how you support an argument to limit endless bantering. But why would they want to limit endless bantering when indeed that's what they seek to create. Doing so is an act against the cornerstone doctrine of Good Faith Specifically, "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." THAT'S how you argue a point.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

I decline comment on the WP:ABF example above. I assume XB70's good faith, but question his WP:COMPETENCE and understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia's goal is not to educate, but to report (or, to be precise, to summarize existing reliable reports.)

As for the specific content in question: If this is considered a reliable source, then the various actual facts reported (which, we had almost reached agreement on) should be distributed to the appropriate sections of this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe the source in question is reliable. It is, by my judgement, not a statement of fact or a factual report, but an opinion piece. If it is going to be used at all, then the POV language and content in the source must be completely eliminated. My suggestion is that if this material is to be included, then a more reliable, independent, factual source would better serve the encyclopaedia. Wikipeterproject (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he/she really meant the "expect a fight" bit. XB70Valyrie is now indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Banned editor

"XB70" was banned by the Wikipedia community at [1], and logged at WP:LOBU. Collect (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Objection to removal of sourced material

Saezon writes, "I don't think that this opinion piece is enough of a source." The source is one of the top 25 newspapers in the United States, according to Wikipedia's list. It's not like it's a blog in who knows what source. Also I think Arzel could be more civil than to call the authors "The Koch boggeymen". They are former elected officials who are well known. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As always, any source which is based on opinions used in any WP:BLP must be accurately cited as "opinion" - when opinions get cited as fact, then they simply must be deleted per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You cannot use opinion pieces as a source for facts. Opinion pieces of course do not undergo the same fact-checking process as news stories. Also, before reporting opinions, you need to show that they are significant. So essentially opinion pieces are of very little use. TFD (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I agree with your edit in a different article, by the way. Well done. Regarding this article, I am happy to reword. But I'm not happy to delete. TFD, if you don't think the opinion of a former Vice President of the United States matters, I feel sorry for you. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Mondale has expressed his views on numerous topics and there are countless people of similar status who have as well. You need to demonstrate that this particular view has attracted attention. TFD (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to demonstrate anything about this particular view. His article appears in a reliable source and he himself is a reliable source. I'll be back tomorrow after 24 hours elapse (for the revert rule) to reword this. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the article, and one thing that struck me is this: "it is a product of an organization known as ALEC, which is the creation of the Koch brothers, who amassed their fortunes in oil and who live in Florida." Many references on Wikipedia and not on Wikipedia show that Charles Koch lives in Wichita and David Koch lives in New York City (at least as primary residences). This seems to be a red flag to the article's credibility as a whole. I think that more sources need to be found that point to the Kochs as founding ALEC before it is integrated into this article.Safehaven86 (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Former Vice-President J. Danforth Quayle III said that the Earth and Mars were "essentially" in the same orbit.[2] Should we add that opinion to the various astonomy articles? TFD (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding material from this source. Opinion pieces need to be labeled as such which this one is. See this [3] regarding the Koch's and funding at ALEC. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And in any case, the opinions must be labeled as "opinion" - it is the idea that simply saying "op-ed" then allows us to make a claim wording it as if it were "fact" which is the problem - the claims must be carefully and specifically cited as "opinion" as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The disputed text is "The brothers created the American Legislative Exchange Council which tries to influence legislatures across the nation and supports a voter ID constitutional amendment in Minnesota, according to Walter Mondale, former Democratic Vice President of the United States, and Arne Carlson, former Republican governor of Minnesota, in a joint opinion they wrote for the Minneapolis Star Tribune".[4] Mondale and Carlson are stating facts, not opinions. Facts require reliable sources. An opinion would explain why these actions are good or bad. TFD (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My point with mentioning that the article erroneously states that the Kochs live in Florida was to show that perhaps this article was not thoroughly fact-checked. I think the nuance here is whether the Kochs created ALEC, or whether they have funded it. They've undeniably funded it–there are plenty of sources on that. But this article is the first one I've seen stating that the Kochs founded ALEC. I think that's a difference worth discussing, and if the claim that they created it isn't corroborated in other pieces, perhaps the WP article should stick with saying that they fund ALEC. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And that is not an excpetion -- opinion pieces are not reliable sources for "facts" and the "fact" here happens to be an "opinion." I did not find the "supports a voter ID ..." tobe a "fact" here. Perhaps you can find the source which makes that claim so we can do so in Wikipedia's voice? And the other source Somedifferentthing wants to use is titled "savage attack on democracy" but he thinks the gist of the opinion piece should not be used -- when it is clearly the main thrust of the opinion! Collect (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Per WP:BLP. Without several cavaets, it would give the impression that someone other than the authors believed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What about, "Walter Mondale, former Democratic Vice President of the United States, and Arne Carlson, former Republican governor of Minnesota claimed that the brothers created the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC tries to influence legislatures across the nation and supports a voter ID constitutional amendment in Minnesota." We can find a reliable source for the second claim. TFD (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it might be synthesis, even if there is a reliable source for the second "claim", but I could agree to that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's my problem with using this source. Suppose the Koch brothers have nothing to do with ALEC. If the claim made in the op-ed had attracted substantial notice then at some point we would learn that the claim was false and would state that fact in this article, if we mentioned ALEC at all. But the claim has received no attention except from us, so we are in the position of drawing attention to a claim that has been ignored. It goes against WP:WEIGHT, which requires us to "represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." But this viewpoint has no prominence, the op-ed is not even about the Koch brothers. TFD (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken....it is a problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD, the material you wrote about "But the claim has received no attention except from us, so we are in the position of drawing attention to a claim that has been ignored" doesn't make sense. If the Koch brothers have provided funding to ALEC for decades [5], why would it suddenly become newsworthy??? - Nevertheless, I'll try to find other sources regarding their involvement with ALEC. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If the Koch brothers have been funding ALEC for years, then there would be a reliable source for it, and we would not have to present it as an opinion. Reliable sources would include news stories, books and academic papers. TFD (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Wikipedia is not the only place to mention this op-ed. It was mentioned in MinnPost (another one of five major news publications from Minneapolis). In my opinion regarding what are most likely multiple Koch residences, Wikipedia has demonstrated weird habits both now and in the past when it comes to the Koch brothers and that any omission in their Wikipedia articles does not mean very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are five major news publications in Minneapolis? I'd have trouble finding 5 major news publications in Los Angeles. And that's an editorial (or possibly op-ed) piece, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering the MinnPost claims that the Koch brothers live in Florida, I would say it is safe to assume that the MinnPost does not know what the hell they are talking about. It was a pretty nice little cut and paste job from the primary clueless statement from Mondale. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Susan, I'll try to locate some other material regarding the Kochs and ALEC. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff I hope you succeed. You folks here continue to insult whomever and whatever publication disagrees with you. Wikipedia articles about the Koch brothers don't mean very much, even when you bury them a level down under "Political activities of...". Nobody else gets that kind of treatment. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please give is a break. Simply find an actual factual statement that says that they were involved with the founding of ALEC. Does it not bother you at all that Mondale and Carlson have no clue where David and Charles actually live? Arzel (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Susan; Where else could it be placed; it would go in a mixture of Charles and David Koch, Koch Industries, Koch Family Foundations, and a few other articles; but no fact should go in more than one article. This emphasizes the political activity, although I agree that nobody else gets that kind of treatment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearing up the nonsense regarding where the Koch brothers live. The Forbes material notes their "residence". Where they "live" (i.e. spend most of their time) could be Florida, we don't know, and it's irrelevant to the content of the article. They appear to have a home in Palm Beach, Florida. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I only brought up the residency issue to show that the Mondale article contained rather flimsy assertions of "fact." I'm sure it's possible that one or more Koch family members has a residence in Florida, but for the record, Charles lists Kansas as his official residence and David listed NYC as his official residence in court papers. [6] The fact that the article nonchalantly asserts that the "Koch brothers live in Florida" casts doubt on other, more important assertions in the article, including the claim that the Kochs founded ALEC. Where the Kochs live is immaterial; but whether or not Wikipedia should include contentious claims referenced by factually inaccurate sources is not. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, whether the Kochs have anything to do with ALEC is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact - they are either involved or they are not. To even allow this source in as an "opinion" of Mondale is problematic because reality isn't subject to opinions and it would be an irresponsible BLP violation to attribute a fact to an opinion piece. Secondly, I have no doubt that the publication itself is reliable, but op-ed pieces are not vetted the same way that news articles are - there is a lot more leeway.

We should not be arguing about including this source to cite a connection to ALEC, rather we should be looking for Mondale's source or any other source that actually verifies the connection. When performing a google search I only find mentions from far left publications like The Nation on the first page when I would hope to find something in the Washpost or NY Times. If the absolute best we can come up with are op-eds then we should not include the information.

@SusanLesch specifically: you should probably give WP:EW a better read. Based on your comment above regarding waiting 24 hours to revert it seems that you have the impression that edit warring is a valid way of settling disputes. Let me correct you now by informing you that 3RR, while a bright line, is not an entitlement and editors are commonly blocked for edit warring even when they don't cross 3RR if an admin believes that said editor will continue revert warring. On top of that, edit warring simply doesn't work on WP as there are always editors willing to revert if they see the addition of material without consensus. You should either find better sourcing or to drop the subject. SÆdon^talk 21:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, ALEC's history on their website makes no mention of any Koch involvement. In my opinion, the Mondale editorial in question is not an acceptable source because a) its and editorial and b) it isnt even really about the Kochs anyway, they are only mentioned in passing. It seems to me that if the Kochs really were involved in the creation of ALEC, then it should be easy to find a better source to back that claim up. If no such source exists, then the supposed connection between the brothers Koch and ALEC should not appear in Wikipedia for lack of an RS. Bonewah (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, sorry I misspelled your username initially. Thank you for the warning but I think it is misplaced. WP:BRD applies in this case: my effort was to reword a second try. That turned out to be unsuccessful. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bonewah. The people and source involved here are exceptional but nobody is infallible. Safehaven86 identified the problem: the Kochs funded (and are members) of ALEC. This is distinct from "founded". So time for me to remember "Think it possible you may be mistaken." -SusanLesch (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Also note that User:Binksternet has ably demonstrated that an op-ed is an acceptable source even for a BLP. Thank you for that. Arthur Rubin, one question. If we were talking about New York City, the fact that it is the largest city in the United States might appear in several different articles: (US cities by population, world cities by population, the article about the city, the state and the country). I disagree with your idea that a fact can only appear in one. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he has not demonstrated that an op-ed is an acceptable source for a BLP; an op-ed is a primary source, and primary sources are acceptable for a BLP only to improve accuracy-checking if a secondary source comments about the primary source (reprinting the primary source without commentary does not count), and the secondary source is also used. As for not appearing in more than one article, that was a mistake on my part. However, this is the primary article in which it might appear. If it were extremly notable, it might occur in the individual Koch's articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

See "Advocacy Funding--Left and Right" in The Big Sort.[7] It is not clear who founded ALEC, but it was not the Koch brothers. From what I have read, ALEC receives funding from many sources. TFD (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken your ball away

Now make friends, discuss the issues here, and when the protection expires and the ball comes back in a week......play nicer - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• You beat me to it. What I see here is many very good editors that just can't agree. Hopefully a week free of editing will generate a consensus. And I assume that like all Full Protections, it isn't an endorsement of the current version. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council partly funded by Koch

In a previous thread, a challenge was placed against an opinion piece which connected American Legislative Exchange Council with funding from the Koch family. There are better sources which confirm the relation. Let's use them instead. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Buhle, Paul; Buhle, Mary Jo (2012). It Started in Wisconsin, page 17. Published by leftist/radical Verso Books. Paul Buhle is a respected radical political scientist, retired. His wife Mary Jo Buhle is a radical feminist historian and author.
• Feinman, Jay M. (2011) Un-Making Law: The Conservative Campaign to Roll Back the Common Law, pages 179 and 184. Jay M. Feinman is Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Law at Camden. Feinman writes: "ALEC has a Private Enterprise Board headed by Kurt L. Malmgren... and including... Koch Industries." He says "Fewer than a dozen foundations are the principal funders of this conservative movement." He connects the Koch family foundations with funding to ALEC.
• Nichols, John (2011). Why Wisconsin Matters, page 135. Nichols, a veteran journalist who worked as the Washington correspondent for The Nation, connects ALEC to its "billionaire benefactors that included Tea Party funders Charles and David Koch." Nichols has examined leaked financial documents gathered by the ALEC Exposed project.
• Noble, Charles (2004). The Collapse of Liberalism: Why America Needs a New Left, page 44. Charles Noble is chair of the department of political science at California State University, Long Beach. Noble says, "The current campaign against liberalism is funded by a small set of tightly controlled family foundations set up to funnel the fortunes of right-wing millionaires and some of America's largest corporations into politics." He names the Koch Family foundations as one of the set, and ALEC as one of the beneficiaries.

They are all reliable sources, on topic, and written by experts and published by academic publishers. TFD (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about we add ALEC to the list in the Political organizations subsection of the organization section? So it would be like "Charles and David Koch also have been involved in, and have provided funding to, a number of other think tanks and advocacy organizations: They provided the initial funding for the Cato Institute,[19] they are key donors to the Federalist Society,[19] and they also support the Mercatus Center, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Institute for Justice, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, the Institute for Energy Research, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Reason Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute.[24][25], ALEC[source] and the Fraser Institute.[26][27]" Bonewah (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable placement. Probably less reasonable in ALEC, unless we also list the other major sources of funds. Not all of those sources are reliable (I'm not absolutely sure that any are reliable, except for the opinion of the author), and they don't support more than Bonewah's proposed statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Good recommendation. And yes they are all reliable sources because they are from academic publishers, which means they have undergone fact-checking. TFD (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Not an academic publisher. Possibly usable for verified (within the book) statements of fact. Might be WP:UNDUE even if reliable, as the publisher is proud of their bias, so they might choose to ignore other organizations more connected.
2. Not known as an academic publisher. Unless you've got the pages wrong, the connection is that Koch Industries is (one of the) members of the Private Enterprise Board, and that Paul Fink, President of two of the Koch Family Foundations, describes his companies' philosophy on funding, without mentioning ALEC.
3. Some of the Perseus Books Group imprints have a good reputation, but there's nothing about Nation Books which suggests it's an "academic publisher" or has a good reputation for fact-checking. Doesn't mention the Kochs directly.
4. Many of their imprints are academic or have a good reputation; I don't know about this particular imprint, but, for the purpose of arguement, I'll concede the point. However, the page you quote connects the "Koch Family foundations" (among others) with ALEC (among others).

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The first three are well-respected publishing houses that include works by academics. That actually meets WP:RS. The publisher of the fourth book, Rowman & Littlefield, is an academic publisher and supports the claim. I suggest using it as the best source. It's clear anyway that the Koch brothers did not "create" ALEC. TFD (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you guys can agree on a source I will support this addition. I'd prefer that one of you make the edit otherwise who knows who will come by and revert me. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The first one, although obviously biased (the publisher states the imprint is intended to be biased), may be acceptable. All the other sources you gave are indirect (whether or not at all reliable), and would require more information to connect the Kochs to ALEC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

From source #1, "Another organization drawing on Koch financial support, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), founded..." - My view is to use source #1 applied to Bonewah's suggestion above. If it is later revealed that the Koch's have been one of ALEC's primary donors then the material can be amended. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems acceptable, although I would like to see evidence that the imprint is trying to print (biased) facts, rather than notable opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can name the Buhles as the origin of source #1. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are almost entirely critical of the Koch's and anything they think that the Koch's are responsible for. It would be nice to have some objective sources talking about the Koch's rather than these books which are pissed off about Wisconsin and blame the Koch's for what happened there. Arzel (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the nature of the Koch's political affairs, I can't think of anyone on either side who would write a non-partisan book with material concerning them. This is what we have to work with so far. With that said, I'm fine with using source #1 naked but wouldn't oppose attribution. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

When protection ends or before if you prefer, please add the following (per Bonewah) to the list in Political organizations:

Charles and David Koch also have been involved in, and have provided funding to, a number of other think tanks and advocacy organizations: They provided the initial funding for the Cato Institute,[19] they are key donors to the Federalist Society,[19] and they also support the Mercatus Center, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Institute for Justice, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, the Institute for Energy Research, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Reason Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute.[24][25], ALEC[<refBuhle, Paul, Moore, Michael, and Nichols John (2012). It Started in Wisconsin. Verso Books via Google Books. p. 17. ISBN 1844678881.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>] and the Fraser Institute.[26][27]

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This suggestion appropriately acknowledges the scholarly credentials of the Buhles, allowing Wikipedia to state facts as facts, rather than requiring the Buhles to be named as the holders of an opinion. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  You seem to have strange interpretations of both WP:NPOV (elsewhere in this talk page) and WP:BLP (here and elsewhere). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A book attacking the Koch's is not what I would consider a scholarly crediential. It is getting quite tiring to hear the left repeatedly make the Koch's out to be some sort of nefarious shadow organization behind everything that they think is currently bad in the world. Arzel (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Susan's inclusion of ALEC. See my last comment in the section above. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually, a clear WP:BLP violation unless "(according to the authors)" is added in plain text, and still problematic unless it can then be rewritten so as to deemphasize the questionable source. If it's accurate, there should be a credible source. It should also be noted that you've proposed a different set of authors than the reference in the previous section. Which is correct? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I used the authors given here. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, in that case, there's no way to give it attribution in that sentence, and it requires attribution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Every part of that book has an author. Each chapter lists its author. For instance, as the listed author of Chapter 2: "The Wisconsin Idea", Mary Jo Buhle is the author of the page 17 quote, "Another organization drawing on Koch financial support, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), founded in 1973, for more than forty years had been supplying conservative office holders with model legislation designed to protect and enhance corporate interests and were now enjoying success in GOP-led state governments." I cannot see any reason why you would have concluded "there's no way to give it attribution in that sentence". Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the attribution is possible. It's still required, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. You (those in favor of inclusion) need to make the chapter author clear in the reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words, the text should read "(according to [[Mari Jo Buhle) ALEC< ref..." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose "Scholarly works" with a clear inherent POV cease to be reasonable sources for such overarching claims as are here asserted. I wold note no one here appears to assert that the Buhle work does not have such an apparent POV. Collect (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  I think we need to point to a specific policy or guideline, or the "evil empire" will ignore our just demands. (To badly mix metaphors and similes (and split infinatives)). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for contentious claims. When we use a source, we do not just use "one sentence from the source" - we direct the reader to said entire source. Where such a source is excessively POV, we, in fact, direct the reader to something far from the "best source" inherently. In the case at hand, Buhle could be used for innocuous claims, but by virtue of being used as a source, becomes an issue per se. Thus best practice is to use the "least bad" source, lest we mislead readers. Buhle does not fill the bill. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I do not see this, as written, as being overly POV or deceptive in its motivations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbower47 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is hardly a scholarly book. John Nichols is many good things but neutral observer is not one of them, as he would be the first to tell you. This book is a partisan broadside designed to stir the soul of labor activists. Take anything they say about their opponents with a grain of salt. Hyperbole in the war to save the right of collective bargaining is the order of the day. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support There are reliable sources and it is not undue to include ALEC with the numerous groups funded by the Koch Brothers. It is not an extraordinary claim, since it is typical of organizations they support. The political opinions of the writers is irrelevant, because this is a matter of fact, not opinion. TFD (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  There may be reliable sources, but none have yet been presented. The given sources is closest to being reliable, but the publisher admits/proudly states that they are biased, so any material subject to interpretation must be credited to the authors. If there was only one author, that crediting could be done inline, but, with 4 unrelated authors.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS#Some types of sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.... Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." All sources are from respected publishing houses and one is from an academic publisher, Rowman & Littlefield. Now could you please provide a policy that supports your claim about sources. TFD (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say that no reliable sources have been presented for that material. Only this source makes the claim in question. As pointed out above, it's essentially a primary source, and should not be used in WP:BLP contexts without clear attribution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The reference needs to use the {{cite book}} template, with chaptertitle and chapterauthor in place, to clarify the appropriate credits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The author of the chapter Mari Jo Buhle won a MacArthur Fellowship. She is the editor of the book. The {{cite book}} template is already in place in my edit request. I have no problem adding chapter information. Most of you seem to be making endless, unreasonable requests. Anything else? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that should be editors=, rather than authors=, and "via Google books" should be in format=, rather than as part of publisher=. But those are minor. I don't think the information is important, considering that we cannot find a non-primary reliable source, but, if attributed in the text, it would not be a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading your typing wrong, no, Arthur Rubin, that is not correct. Why are we arguing about who is the editor and who is the author? The Buhles are editors, and the authors are Paul Buhle, Michael Moore and John Nicols. Mary Jo Buhle, who is an editor, is the author of chapter 2. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The list of (chapter) authors is not relevant to the credibility of the source. What should be credited are the editors and the author of the chapter we are referencing; hence the citation should have editors= and chapterauthor=; author= (even if reported by Google books) is not relevant. Careful study of the detailed credits show it should read: editors=Mari Jo Buhle and Paul Buhle, and should not have an authors field. (By the way, why is Mari Jo Buhle not listed as an "author" in Google books? Sexism?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the list from Amazon.com. As it turns out you are correct to argue about who is the author:

Mari Jo Buhle (Editor), Paul Buhle (Editor), John Nichols (Introduction), Michael Moore (Afterword), Patrick Barrett (Contributor), Mary Bottari (Contributor), Roger Bybee (Contributor), Ruth Conniff (Contributor), Gary Dumm (Contributor), Simon Hardy (Contributor), Frank Emspak (Contributor), Ashok Kumar (Contributor), Tom Morello (Contributor), David Poklinkowski (Contributor), Matthew Rothschild (Contributor), Sharon Rudahl (Contributor), Charity A. Schmidt (Contributor)

So here is {{cite book}}: Buhle, Mari Jo (2012). "The Wisconsin Idea". In Buhle, Mari Jo; Buhle, Paul (eds.). It Started in Wisconsin (via Google Books). Verso Books. p. 17. ISBN 1844678881.

Thank you, especially if we can come to agreement today. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Tracing the citation templates, it looks as if {{cite encyclopedia}} is the correct one, but it's difficult to use: Perhaps:

Buhle, Mari Jo (2012). "The Wisconsin Idea" (via Google Books). In Buhle, Mari Jo; Buhle, Paul (eds.). It Started in Wisconsin. Verso Books. p. 17. ISBN 1844678881.

Interesting. Looks the same as the "cite book". OK, then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That comes out to 4 support plus "OK, then" from Arthur Rubin, plus my support = 6, v. 4 oppose. Would someone kindly make this edit? All you have to do is add the source, copied below:

Buhle, Mari Jo (2012). "The Wisconsin Idea" (via Google Books). In Buhle, Mari Jo; Buhle, Paul (eds.). It Started in Wisconsin. Verso Books. p. 17. ISBN 1844678881.

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an in-depth article which links ALEC and Koch Industries - Link:[8]

From the article:

The rest of its members are representatives of nearly 300 of the biggest U.S. corporations, including Johnson & Johnson, Verizon, AT&T, Wal-Mart, Koch Industries, UPS, Exxon and Coca-Cola, as well as conservative think tanks and advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association. Legislators and corporate officials gather at high-end resort towns several times a year to draft and update model bills. ALEC documents show lawmakers pay $50 a year to be members. Corporations pay at least $7,000 and up to $25,000 to join — more if they want to help draft model bills as part of one of nine policymaking task forces. At least 98 percent of ALEC’s $7 million budget comes from corporations, according to its latest IRS filing. As a nonprofit 501(c)(3), ALEC is exempt from paying taxes.

Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That source claims that Koch Industries is a member of ALEC. Isn't this discussion regarding whether they provided funding? Whether or not they are a member doesn't seem to be too notable since there are a large number ("nearly 300") of big companies listed that are, based on this source. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it documents that Koch Industries is a member of a committee. A little stronger than being a member of ALEC, but not really that much. It certainly doesn't indicate it is of any importance to either organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It states, "Corporations pay at least $7,000 and up to $25,000 to join". So yes, Koch Industries provided funding to ALEC, along with a host of other corporations. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Which suggests: ALEC has corporate memberships, and Koch Industries was likely one of its mambers is about as far as you can run with that bit if trivia. I would like to point out that most corporations of any reasonable size belong to 10 or more organizations - wwith larger ones belonging to hundreds of organizations. DuPont, frinstance, probably belongs to several thousand organizations (that is, they pay fees to several thousand organizations). Collect (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the political activities of the Koch family. That Koch Industries provided funding to ALEC is our concern and has been demonstrated. In other words, what "other corporations" have done is irrelevant to this discussion. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It has to be relevant to "political activities of the Koch family" to be included here; it not only has to be sourced, but relevant. That seems tangential. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Koch Industries provided funding to ALEC is clearly relevant to an article about the "political activities of the Koch family". The Koch family are the majority owners of this private corporation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Is "$7,000 to $25,000" a significant amount, either to Koch Industries, or to ALEC? If there is no evidence of that, then using this for "funding" is WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Funding is funding, whether it be $1,000 or $10,000, and has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE weight. Hundreds of corporations have provided funding to ALEC, Koch Industries is merely one of them. Once the protection expires on the article I will add them to the list per user:Bonewah's original post, and later user:SusanLesch's edit request, with the only difference being the sourcing I've provided. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

David Koch "funds" Doctors Without Borders (which is a "political group"). If you feel all memberships and donations belong, I have a nice long list we can add <g>. Meanwhile, you do not have WP:CONSENSUS on your side here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, Doctors Without Borders is a humanitarian-aid NGO, not a "political group". I need to get going now. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually - it definitely meets the criteria for being a "political group" - check out its press releases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Our article reports that Doctors Without Borders "frequently insists on political responsibility in conflict zones such as Chechnya and Kosovo." Seems adequate to make it a "political group". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning the funding is not undue weight; take as an example the many reliable sources that make the connection. We would be burying our heads in the sand to ignore a connection so widely noted. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources which mention a connection without even implying funding. You have found only which which explicitly states "funded", and one which explicitly implies "funded". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Funding" to me seems to indicate something like investment, i.e. one may fund a business venture or fund a charity. The Koch-ALEC connection seems to me to be more like paying membership dues in a business relationship. In a very literal way I suppose it could be considered funding in the same way that I'm funding my local Indian restaurant when I eat out, but colloquially I think a better description of their relationship is possible. SÆdon^talk 00:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's now a moot point. Here are a couple of new sources which support it's addition to the section in question. [9], [10]. I've added the material to the section which can be seen here.[11] (See ALEC in the third paragraph). I've included quotes within the references. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not moot. Claims with WP:BLP implications do not get exempted here. And claims about ALEC do not belong here at all, but in that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what this article is about nor do you have a clear understanding of WP:BLP implications. This edit-warring is unacceptable. Placed warning on user's talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What you've said you were going to do would clearly violate WP:BLP. Let me check what you added to the article to see whether you did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article supports inclusion, but the quote is what would be termed "prejudicial" at law, and WP:COATRACK here (but not necessarily WP:BLP — if I need to revert another few times, I'll check); and the Irish Times article seems to be just quoting Bloomberg. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your addition of "or are members of" seems to require addition of any other political organization of which they are members, and of which we can find a reliable source to that effect, such as possibly Doctors without Borders. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the revision history, user:Collect originally added "or are members of". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did the article and quote from Bloomberg News get removed? Arthur Rubin I thought you said above that it "supports inclusion" which is good because it is a reliable source. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

He didn't remove the Bloomberg article, only the quote. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. You're right. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)