Talk:Charles Koch: Difference between revisions

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Stub‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

what does "is libertarian" refer to? is koch a registered libertarian? or does he claim to be a libertarian? anyone got a source for that? he's one of the largest donors to the republican party (hint: they're not libertarians); a cursory glimpse at his campaign donations shows he donates heavily to the GOP. his cato institute consistently supports a large number of decidedly unlibertarian positions. this is common knowledge in the LP. why not wikipedia? 71.174.153.71 (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autarchism per Brian Doherty (journalist) of Reason (magazine) and Radicals for Capitalism, Robert LeFevre "won Charle's heart"^[1] William F. Buckley Jr. called it "Anarcho-Totalitarianism." (Anarcho-capitalism/Anarchy+Totalitarianism) > Koch and Anarcho-Totalitarianism http://www.thenation.com/article/154595/money-well-spent http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/charles-koch-david-koch-b_n_690825.html 99.29.185.127 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have not found any RS for asserting that Buckley ever used the term while alive. The first appearance I found so far was in July 2010. Collect (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker page 49 in print 30.August.2010, but read the whole article for context. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer and David_H._Koch#Political_career. 99.60.125.127 (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good for the claim by the article author as a matter of opinion - but rather insufficient when I found zero examples of the term prior at all. Collect (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which "term"?19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk)

Maybe Minarchism, see Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism? 99.155.145.195 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For which a reliable source would have to be found relating it to Koch. Absent that, it is not WP's place to issue labels. Collect (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly dont see how anyone can honestly say that this line is either accurate or neutral "He also funds the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which works to stymie federal regulation, particularly from the Environmental Protection Agency.[8]" The Mercatus Center wiki page doesnt even mention the EPA at all, nor is there any mention of the EPA on a quick scan of their website. I think it is highly disingenuous, not to mention non-neutral to describe this institution only in terms of something its not even clear they really do, let alone clearly not their sole focus. The mere fact that the Jane Mayer New Yorker piece describes them in worse terms, as shootbamboo says in his edit summary [1] is not a reason for us to throw neutrality and accuracy out the window. If anything, i think this shows why we shouldnt use the Jane Meyer article at all. Bonewah (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "opposes" is surely sufficient. Collect (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, but is even that correct? As I said, their website covers lots of topics, singling out the EPA, for mention here is a clear NPOV problem. Bonewah (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol, not use the jane meyer article at all. i'm fine with the word "oppose" instead of "stymie". -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But again, what proof do we have that this is really the most important element of the mercatus center? Their research areas show tons of subjects totally unrelated to the EPA, why do we pick that particular topic to describe the Mercatus center? Bonewah (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of adding things that are not true, but "proof" is not a threshold for inclusion. Also, I reinserted EPA without saying it was the most important and you still reverted on a POV concern. I'm not wholly convinced, but I'm fine to leave it as is for now. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to this article keep introducing commentary from Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece that quotes the opinion of one guy saying "They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times." This is flat out a BLP violation, per BLP: "We must get the article right" and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The opinion of one guy, even if he is someone from a so-called non-partisan think tank is not even close to a reliable source for claims that the subject has a pattern of lawbreaking, etc etc. It is, as the source says, just the opinion of one guy, and, as such, not suitable for a BLP. Bonewah (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Charges of criminal activity are, per se, contentious. Collect (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inexperienced with BLP issues, and I've never tried to add this content, but just by it being in the New Yorker I don't see how it would qualify as "unsourced or poorly sourced". -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charges that a person is guilty of criminal activity is, per se, contentious. As the New Yorker article is clearly opinion at best, such does not rise to the level of backing such a claim. A person writing in the New Yorker who says, for example, that George Bush is a "murderer" does not belong in a BLP of Bush, for example. Collect (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I read "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" to require both contentiousness and poor sourcing. We could always say, "in the opinion of X, Koch demonstrates lawbreaking" and not violate BLP, it appears. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Jimbo's comments. Also ArbCom's position: ) Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written using reliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans. It is clear that "criminal allegarions" made by a person as an editorial comment fall into the category of "contentious" and the fact of criminality requires more than "opinion" as a minimum. Collect (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read this and I am not convinced your interpretation is correct. For me, I wouldn't add the "lawbreaking" material yet as I think it might be WP:UNDUE. But if we can get an additional one or two people quoted in mainstream media that it is their opinion that Koch engages in lawbreaking, it doesn't seem neutral to omit it. -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-For any sufficiently famous person, you will have many people who have an opinion on that person. If you think of someone like Barack Obama, obviously, lots of people have opinions on him, many millions I would say, but does knowing those opinions help one understand Obama? That is the question you need to ask yourself, does knowing the opinion of some other person help the reader understand the subject better? Does knowing that someone, somewhere thinks that Koch is a lawbreaker help us understand Koch? I think the answer to that question is a clear no, in almost all cases a BLP is not improved by adding the opinion's of a third party. Bonewah (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker is among the most reliable publications. The "guy" in question isn't a nobody -it's Charles Lewis, founder of the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity. While I don't know that we need to include the entire quotation, but it's a noteworthy view and NPOV calls on us to include all significant views.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are allegations of criminal activity something that requires more than "but it is a reliable source"? If those allegations were removed, would the article's accuracy about Koch suffer? Collect (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So its Charles Lewis, so what? Again, how does this help us understand Charles Koch? Shall we put Charles Lewis' opinion of Obama in Obama's biography? Explain your thinking in general terms so I can understand when an opinion is noteworthy enough to be included and when it is not. Bonewah (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon Collect's point here, the source isnt really the New Yorker, its Charles Lewis. The mere fact that it appears in an article in the NYer does not change the fact that it is clearly the opinion of Lewis. Bonewah (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion that the New Yorker found to be sufficiently noteworthy to include. Why do we quote Stephen Moore (economist)? Does NPOV require that we exclude negative views of people? I don't think so. It just says that we need to be especially careful with the sourcing.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, so what? So the New Yorker found in noteworthy? That doesnt really explain why we should put it here, or, more importantly, how knowing the opinion of this particular guy helps us understand the subject. Same applies to Stephen Moore, why do we quote him? This really has nothing to do with positive or negative, if i found dozens of quotes singing Koch's praises how would that improve our understanding of him? The answer is it wouldnt. Merely knowing that someone has a positive or negative opinion of the subject is largely irrelevant. This isnt even touching on the fact that accusing someone of lawbreaking is fairly strong stuff, not to be thrown around lightly, and certainly not to be thrown around based on the opinion of one guy.

The more general case is revealing here, why not include Charles Lewis' opinion of Barack Obama on the Obama bio? Why not include Stephen Moore for that matter? Why is it that the Obama article includes *no* third party opinions of the subject? I think if you answer that question you will see why third party opinions have no place in this biography either. Bonewah (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have a point. You're comparing wikipedia pages between a billionaire who runs a private company to a U.S. president, and because your premise is so poor, I think you're reaching erroneous conclusions. Many more opinions have been published on Obama than on Koch. Thus, it would definitely be WP:UNDUE to insert Moore's or Lewis' opinion on Obama there. (Although I don't see the problem with starting a section with one of their opinions by including a "needs expansion" tag.) I favor any biography on wikipedia having opinions of notable people, as long as it follows policy. I favor including the opinions of notable people because I think it helps one understand the niche an individual occupies. I think this discussion, including my words here, is getting a little away from the goal of a talk page though. -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-OD Im using the extreme case of Barack Obama to illustrate the general problem with third-party opinions in biographies. The Obama article has *no* third party opinions and it isnt just WP:UNDUE that is the issue, (although that is one of the problems). There is also neutrality issues in choosing what third-party opinions to be included, and, more importantly, relevance. The only reason to include a third party opinion in a biography is if the third party's opinion somehow matters to the subject. You might be able to make the case that FDR and Winston Churchill's opinions of each other matter because their relationship was so important, or that Margret Thatcher's opinion of Denis Thatcher is relevant to the latter's bio because Margret Thatcher's opinion was relevant to Denis Thatcher. In each case its clear *why* the third party opinion matters, which isnt the case here, the only thing we can really say about Moore or Lewis' opinion is that they hold it, not that it matters at all to Koch. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the other folks are already linked appropriately, the linking to the disambiguation page Koch brothers is silly. Collect (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although the below links show that the "Koch Brothers" are commonly referred to as a separate political entity. Below are some sources from just the last few weeks ...

* The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win audio story by NPR

* The Billionaire Koch brothers war against Obama cover story by The New Yorker

* How Important Are The Koch Brothers? by The New Republic

* The Koch brothers invade California by Salon magazine

* Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law by The LA Times

* The Koch Brothers and the Tea Parties by The Washington Independent

* Schwarzenegger vs. Big Oil and The Billionaire Koch Brothers by Forbes

* The billionaire Koch brothers: Tea Party puppetmasters? by The Week

  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is not relevant here. The page linked is basically a dab page, and the other family members are bluelinked within the article in the first place. This reminds me of a person looking up "recursion" on Google. Collect (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "basically" a dab page, although it's still in the format of a dab page. What needs to be done is to collect (single) statements made about both brothers, move them to Koch brothers, and summarize them in the individual articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I havent done a thorough survey, but I dont believe that famous brothers get (or should get) separate pages for themselves and the pair, like you are suggesting here. I have no problem with a disambiguation page, but a separate page for them as brothers? Whats the point? As such, i dont see the value in adding a see also link here to what is (or should be) a disambig page. Bonewah (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Koch brothers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wichita Eagle is real, but the web page is a blog entry, not a news article, and and is not Jane's. Jane may have had a column in the Eagle, but there's no evidence of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koch Industries purchased Georgia Pacific in late 2005. All employees were briefed in Mr. Kochs MBM philosophy. The first principal of MBM is Integrity. Mr. Koch's employees in the Management of the Crossett, AR Pulp and Paper Operations were a part of the violation of the Federal Statute on Eavesdropping. Violators can face one year in prison and $500,00 in fines. It appears that Mr. Koch's MBM philosophy is not practiced by the GP Employees as they were allowed to use this illegal practice to defame employees there. Repeated requests to resolve their unlawful practice have gone unresolved and Mr. Koch needs to be made aware of how this branch of his giant corporation have no respect for the law and no INTEGRITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.237.114 (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source? And verify that the violations were after Mr. Koch took over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moore writes "Mr. Koch's latest crusade to spread the ideas of liberty has been his sponsorship of a twice-yearly conference that gathers together many of the most successful American entrepreneurs, from T. Boone Pickens to former Circuit City CEO Rick Sharp. The objective is to encourage these captains of industry to help fund free-market groups devoted to protecting the fragile infrastructure of liberty." A recent article also discusses these twice yearly meetings: Kate Zernike (25 October 2010). "Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead". The New York Times.. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth including Koch's own description of this in a 2006 Wall Street Journall interview, which this article currently cites and quotes already (except about Buffett and Soros):

Mr. Koch's latest crusade to spread the ideas of liberty has been his sponsorship of a twice-yearly conference that gathers together many of the most successful American entrepreneurs, from T. Boone Pickens to former Circuit City CEO Rick Sharp. The objective is to encourage these captains of industry to help fund free-market groups devoted to protecting the fragile infrastructure of liberty. That task seems especially critical given that so many of the global superrich, like George Soros and Warren Buffett, finance institutions that undermine the very system of capitalism that made their success possible. Isn't this just the usual rich liberal guilt, I ask. "No," he says, "I think they simply haven't been sufficiently exposed to the ideas of liberty."

The article almost entirely relies upon the New Yorker hit piece that was refuted by multiple sources, but there's no balance or acknowledgment that the New Yorker article is inaccurate. (COI disclosure: I represented a Koch family member adverse to Charles in litigation and a Koch customer that sued Koch Pipeline over a decade ago. And the Koch Foundation turned down a grant proposal I submitted to them.) THF (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point us to a source refuting the New Yorker article? (Sorry if that's a stupid question) SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], etc., etc. THF (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reliable source that refutes the New Yorker piece? Most the above aren't reliable, and the few are don't actually point out anything that the author got wrong. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sources are just as reliable as the partisan New Yorker piece, and all of them point out things the New Yorker piece got wrong, and there are dozens of others. But thanks for demonstrating Wikipedia's double standard about partisan sources. If someone tried to cite a conservative author as partisan as Jane Mayer in a BLP about a liberal figure, it would be deleted in a second, and the editor would be blocked. THF (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Provide the sources and there won't be any problems. Have you ever considered that this billionaire either doesn't care about the attention given him by the press, or he does, but is not taking any legal action? Wikipedia articles report what secondary sources say about a topic, not primary sources. Since the New Yorker has editors and can easily be sued, reporting what it says is not going to present a legal problem for Wikipedia. Do you have a non-partisan reliable source that says the New Yorker piece is partisan? If it is partisan, is it demonstrably incorrect? Abductive (reasoning) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the links I gave? He had a lawyer write the New Yorker demanding corrections, so he does care. And again, thanks for demonstrating the Wikipedia double-standard whereby Jane Mayer, who coordinated this article with the Obama White House for political purposes, is not "partisan," but those who point out that Mayer is biased and incorrect are "partisan." THF (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source to support the claim that he demanded corrections, we can include that in the article as well. However, the fact that the subject of a news story doesn't agree with the contents of that story does not make it any less reliable. We report both sides. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a reliable source that supports the claim that he demanded corrections, and the article doesn't report both sides, but instead heavily relies upon a partisan hit piece without any indication that it was a partisan hit piece. Hence the NPOV problem. And again, an obvious double-standard for Wikipedia: no BLP of a figure on the left would be permitted to contain, much less rely so heavily, on a partisan article about them by a right-wing writer. (I think that is an unreasonable reading of BLP, and don't object to a mention of the Mayer article, but I do object to the one-sidedness and UNDUE of the current version.) THF (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that anybody was partisan, and being partisan is not the same thing as a non-neutral POV. If one reads the primary source letter, one can see that it doesn't so much as deny specific facts as bash the motives of the sources and George Soros. Abductive (reasoning) 04:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with THF. It's a language problem. What's are "hard-line" libertarian views that Jane Mayer mentions? I've never met two libertarians that agree on anything, so it seems odd that we would use a word that is so loaded. Doesn't it mean uncompromising? Heinleinscat (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a battleground for Jane Mayer and The New Yorker. Even if the piece contained factual errors, you would need to demonstrate what was wrong with this article's neutrality to justify a NPOV tag, in my opinion. There can be factual errors in that piece with this article remaining perfectly neutral. And even so, in that case, if the article contained a factual error which was mirrored here, this seems a reason for a "the factual accuracy of this article is in question" tag, and not a neutrality tag. I just don't get it. At all. If there is something to be said in RS's about Jane Mayer's journalism, then take that content to her article. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've demonstrated that above. The article violates WP:UNDUE by so heavily emphasizing the discredited Mayer hit-piece and further violates WP:NPOV by failing to acknowledge the point of view that the Mayer article was a discredited hit-piece. There's no mention of market-based management, no mention of Koch's enormous business success over the last forty years, no mention of his family, and no mention of his much larger charitable donations. The article is a COATRACK for the Mayer hit-piece. THF (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think THF is correct that Mayer's column is notable only for Mayer's opinion. However, it's not a WP:NPOV violation, it's an accuracy-related error. Mayer is just not reliable, and it's a column in The New Yorker, rather than a "news" article with claims to accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

But it's not just that. There's also the UNDUE problem, which is a subset of NPOV. This is someone who built the second-largest private company in the world and wrote an influential book about an innovative management philosophy, and the article is all about Mayer's complaint about a fraction of the Kochs' charitable endeavors. THF (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of THF's sources is reliable, except the actual Koch letter (for the purpose of this article, only, and only for the purpose of noting that Koch disagrees with the article.) However The New Yorker, in addition to what might be called news articles, also prints commentary. This article is commentary, and nothing but, and hence is also not reliable except as to Mayer's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, I agree the article could use expansion about his career and his management philosophy. I've worked to put these type of relevant things in the article; there are six citations to a 2006 WSJ interview and three to a 2009 American Journal of Business interview. Arthur Rubin, I don't see why Mayer's piece is unreliable "commentary". The New Yorker labels the article under a reporter at large which = journalism to me. -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, thanks for your good work here. It might help to know that Arthur and I (and a bunch of others) are in mediation over Tea Party movement, where one of the contended issues is whether articles about Koch's influence on the movement are reliable. Hopefully, this fact will help you calibrate his responses appropriately. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. You might note Dylan's presence there as the sole party commenting there in favor of certain sources being relevant or reliable (for a specific statement), and calibrate his responses appropriately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, the suggestion that I am the sole party who opposes the naked claim of grassroots is patently false and prejudicial, so please stop repeating it. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only party who has claimed there is evidence against grassroots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this turns out not to be the case. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much fun as it would be to continue this, I hope you don't mind if I save my energy for the mediation page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Flaherty and Rubin. As I agree the article should incorporate more career/management stuff I hacked away some Mayer content until we balance out the article. I also removed the tag as Mayer does not dominate this article. My edit summary should have said "Mayer is hardly the major source for the article now" (my emphasis). Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fine by me. None of the concerns I've expressed have been adequately addressed. The tag explicitly states The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. Yet editors persist in removing the tag, in violation of its express terms and WP:NPOVD. Stop it. Three separate editors have expressed concerns with the NPOV problems in this article. Fix the WP:UNDUE failure to discuss 99% of Koch's career and balance the COATRACK of Mayer's article with the critiques of Mayer's article (from Koch itself if no one else), and then we can talk. THF (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, with all due respect, one of the ways such disputes may be resolved is by the conclusion that the claim is false. In other words, we don't actually need your agreement in order to remove that tag. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:NPOVD says. And it's pretty clear that my claim isn't false. This is someone who built a multi-billion dollar company, and the article is a COATRACK that doesn't even mention that. And it's hardly "due respect" when no one has bothered to discuss that concern on the talk page. If you can't edit neutrally, you shouldn't be editing BLPs. THF (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I compare the Koch letter (PDF above), to this article, I see no relevance to what this article states about Charles. Koch Industries gripes about the way sources are presented in the piece. If we were writing an article on Jane Mayer's piece itself then it would then be worth mentioning. But, as there is no content this article states about Charles that is disputed (even in unreliable sources!) then there is no reason to "balance ... Mayer's article with critiques" of it, THF. (In other words, I think our WP:BLP policy would cover whatever you're concerned about in her piece. Also, I think you saying this article is a coatrack is a baseless "smear attack" on a fairly decent and improving article.) I also think you're being overly aggressive by setting the terms of when "we can talk" about if the article is clear of UNDUE/NPOV problems. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What comes to mind is that, until recently, Koch has kept a very low profile. It's not coatracking to report on the very issues that have brought him to public attention. In any case, if THF truly believes that we are in violation of WP:BLP, then there is a special page where such serious matters can be reported. That's the correct next step: edit-warring over a tag is not. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's BS. Here are 75 articles about Koch from 2004-2006. Here are several dozen from 1999-2000, including the litigation where my client was on the other side. Here's several dozen from 1998 alone. Here are several dozen more from the 1990s. Koch is not Donald Trump, but it's not like he's been a total recluse that's never had anything written about him until Jane Mayer wrote her discredited partisan hit-piece. THF (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if you want all of these sources in the article, start typing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit I've made has been reverted--even when the edits were plainly required by policy. I'm not inclined to spend time on additional edits without consensus. THF (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: the problem with the article is that it violates WP:UNDUE because 90% of the article is about a 2010 complaint about Koch's political activity and the article entirely ignores the accomplishments of the man's life in building a multi-billion dollar company. So, no, the article is not "clear of UNDUE/NPOV problems." The fact that the article relies so heavily on a discredited partisan hit-piece without citing any of the dozen or so refutations of it is only a small part of the problem. THF (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what WP:UNDUE actually says. It's not about anything you're talking about: it's about ensuring that minority and fringe views do not overwhelm an article. You seem to think that the source of Koch's newfound notoriety should be reduced to a footnote, which is an opinion you're entitled to have, but not one supported by policy. Again, I suggest you bring this up on WP:BLPN instead of edit-warring over the tag. To be clear, if you keep removing it, I will report you for a slow edit-war against consensus. Do the right thing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what WP:UNDUE actually says. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints—also to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material, as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. And that's before we get to the straightforward NPOV problem that Mayer and Zernike get six footnotes, but none of the criticism of Mayer's and Zernike's inaccuracies get any. There have been dozens and dozens of reliable sources about Koch (see above), and an autobiographical chapter in Koch's book that talks at length about his career (which isn't cited at all), but the article relies most heavily on Mayer's partisan hit-piece. THF (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation, but at this point, it hardly matters. I'm going to remove your tag and raise the issue myself on WP:BLPN. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 more sources documenting his 18% returns, grandfather, and fondness for Human Action. A level of WP:RECENTISM does not necessarily equal an WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV violation, it seems. THF, thanks for making some good points (now all addressed to some extent) about what things should be added on this page, but you appear hell bent on taking shots at Mayer on this talk page and the article, but I don't understand how that helps us write an encyclopedic article on Charles Koch. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayer's claim that Koch is the primary funder of the Tea Party is unsupported. THF (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's notable, so it can be stated if attributed to Mayer, but it's not supported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference from The New Yorker in the piece strikes me as kind of problematic for reasons that other people have already alluded to. Isn't "hard-line" kind of a loaded word? I recommend deletion or ellipses... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinleinscat (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it would be a contentious label. To me it is like describing someone as a "strict vegetarian". I wouldn't use the phrase without attribution, so I think the article does well. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but Shootbamboo, wouldn't you agree that "hard-line" is pejorative? We use the phrase "hard liner" to describe the conservative elements in the Iranian regime, not its more liberal side. Why don't we use how Koch actually describes himself politically? Just sayin' Heinleinscat (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, I'm getting the unfortunate impression that your changes are some sort of attempt to whitewash Koch. Please stop removing cited, relevant material from the article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed anything relevant. I have removed WP:UNDUE reliance on an inaccurate partisan hit-piece, WP:COATRACK material about the political positions of Charles's brother, and a cite to an anonymous Democratic strategist that inaccurately portrayed the Mercatus Center. I haven't accused you of POV-pushing, even though you insist on making this article all about Jane Mayer's idiosyncratic opinions and refuse to include any of the RS refutations of Mayer. THF (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but looking at the edit history, I cannot agree with your summary. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to play Argument Clinic. I've extensively explained my edits and related them to policy and guidelines, and you respond with ipse dixit. When you insert Stephen Hayes's reporting into the Bill Moyers article, I might believe your attempt to turn this article into plagiarism of Jane Mayer's partisan hit-piece is something other than POV-pushing. THF (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with THF on this NPOV argument. Look, the heavy reliance on the Jane Mayer piece is well, not up to snuff for what we are capable of producing here, especially seeing as it was rather routinely criticized in both the right and left blogosphere (admittedly for different reasons). Come on, people. Let's go hit up Lexis-Nexis or some books. I suggest, in the spirit of consensus, that we at least put up that The New Yorker piece is "controversial" or mention a subheading about the response from that piece? What say you all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinleinscat (talk • contribs) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to replace the Wall Street Journal's neutral description of the Mercatus Center (from an article about Mercatus and Koch) with a partisan description by an anonymous "Democratic strategist" quoted by NPR -- unless one is POV-pushing. THF (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. What was the source previously? What happened to the previous source? Was it just deleted? -Digiphi (Talk) 17:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted after I added it with no explanation. [9] THF (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Now it's back. You're right. There's no reason it shouldn't be in there. Now it and the NPR item are there. So it's both ways. I also eliminated "free-markets" from the sentence. For one thing, it's covered at the beginning of sentence. No reader will be wondering if it's an advocate for national socialism just because it doesn't have "free-markets" in front of it. For another thing, it's getting awfully cluttered with all the links. It's better as just "public-policy think tank" I feel. I also moved a clause to the end of the sentence, again to ease the jumbling of links. —Digiphi (Talk) 19:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cited Mayer, not someone anonymous: "One of the more important, kind of less well-known but very important ones is called the Mercatus Center, which is at George Mason University in Northern Virginia. And it is a think-tank that is very targeted in its approach, basically aimed at gutting all kinds of federal regulations, particularly environmental regulations."[10] Also, read the complete title (according to my database) of the WSJ article: "Rule Breaker: In Washington, Tiny Think Tank Wields Big Stick on Regulation; With White House Ex-Staffers, Mercatus Helps Zap Codes It Says Restrict Business; The Cost of Protecting a Fish." We may decide not to describe Mercatus, but it is obviously neutral to describe Mercatus as seeking to reduce regulation. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayer's not a neutral source -- as demonstrated by the biased poison-the-well description of "gutting" she gives. This is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be adhering to NPOV, not an opposition research wiki. THF (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 14 December version continues to rely upon a partisan quote from a partisan source and falsely attributes it to NPR. This violates both NPOV and accuracy. Give Mercatus a neutral description consistent with what it actually does. THF (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the platform of the ticket David Koch ran on belongs in the David Koch article. It doesn't belong in the Charles Koch article per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. THF (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually dead-on in this case. This whole passage:
"The party ticket promised to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE.[13][14] The ticket proposed legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide.[13] After the bid, according to a book by Brian Doherty, an editor of Reason magazine, Charles and David viewed politicians as "actors playing out a script" and they wanted to "supply the themes and words for the scripts" by influencing "the areas where policy ideas percolate from: academia and think tanks".
should be moved, either to the David Koch page, or perhaps the Libertarian presidential races article. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it would be too much detail, but surely not biased, as a coattrack would require. Why not just trim it down to something short like "supported his brother for vice president, who ran on a platform to abolish the central bank, a variety of government programs, and multiple federal agencies" or something even shorter. I don't see how that is biased or tangential. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Everything but the above passage should stay. It should be mentioned that he supported his brother, or whatever, and we can wikilink to his brother's article. We'll purge the stuff about the ticket. I'll check if it's on his brother's article. If not we can move it there. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose the platform being mentioned, but as it is at David's page, I removed mention of the platform for now in the interest of consensus. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of consensus, I was willing to compromise on this version, despite the fact that it so heavily relied on Jane Mayer, when no Wikipedia BLP of a left-wing figure would ever allow similar coverage from a partisan opponent (cf. Bill Moyers, which has been entirely whitewashed of Stephen Hayes's reporting, other than a single item of sanitized trivia), and didn't readd the NPOV tag, even though it was once again removed improperly without discussion on the talk page. But that was apparently viewed as a sign of weakness, and editors started slanting the article within 24 hours. Not acceptable, and I apparently am going to have to demand that the article adhere to the same BLP standards that are applied to Bill Moyers if there's any hope of the article approaching anything resembling NPOV. THF (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made this sort of claim before, but have never gotten any traction. I'm sorry, but the article isn't biased just because you personally disagree with it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced. I think it could rely much less on the Mayer piece, for example, to support nearly half the content in the sections. We might consider a RfC. —Digiphi (Talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Bill Moyers edit for you THF. I am glad you think we were making progress on the article. But likewise I am not convinced of your other interpretations. I guess it was "bold" to add David's platform, which Charles supported, but we're discussing that above. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. You have one very abbreviated sentence about Hayes's reporting on Moyers in the much-longer Bill Moyers article. Assuming that sticks and doesn't get reverted, I agree that it would be consistent to have one half-sentence about Jane Mayer's reporting in this article; right now the majority of the article is taken directly from Mayer, in violation of NPOV. The article is Charles G. Koch, not Jane Mayer article about Charles G. Koch. THF (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record reflect that Shootbamboo's tiny edit in Bill Moyers was deleted within a week. Again, the double standard is not appropriate. If Stephen Hayes's reporting cannot be accurately described in detail in Bill Moyers--indeed, cannot even be mentioned!--then the far more partisan and far more extensive use of Jane Mayer does not belong in this BLP. THF (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that a claim about a living person which was sourced only to an opinion piece by Bill O'Reilly should be included in that article, you should take up a discussion on that article's talk page. But it seems your interest isn't really in Moyer's biography, it's in using an edit that took place elsewhere as some sort of justification for your edits here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hayes isn't Bill O'Reilly. Hayes wrote an extensively reported piece about Moyers, and editors proclaim that it is inappropriate to include the material in the Moyers article under BLP because Hayes writes for a magazine with a political point of view. If that's so, then Jane Mayer doesn't belong in the Koch article for the same reason. There's only one BLP policy, not one for left-wingers like Moyers and another for right-wingers like Koch. I have no desire to argue with the POV-pushers at the Bill Moyers page. I just want Wikipedia to enforce its policies consistently. If there's a policy prohibiting writers for partisan magazines from being cited for their critical pieces about their political opponents, then it needs to be enforced here. If there isn't such a policy, then there are editors who need to be topic-banned and administrators who need to be de-sysopped for their abusive behavior on the Bill Moyers page. Which is it? THF (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section that was removed by another editor was simply a googlebooks image from one of Bill O'Reilly's books. Frankly, I'm surprised it lasted an entire week since it was so blatantly in violation of RS, BLP, NPOV, and pretty much every other policy. But that's another article. If you feel it should be included there after all, that article has a talk page. If you feel that an entirely different reference should not be included here, you should argue that on its own merits rather than engaging in this tortured "apples are like oranges which are like apples" logic. Other editors will be more likely to take the arguments seriously if you stick to the facts at hand as they relate to this article instead of trying to tie it into some vast left-wing wikiconspiracy. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You demonstrate my point. Jane Mayer is no better than Bill O'Reilly for purposes of RS, BLP, or NPOV. Left-wing editors on Bill Moyers created a "consensus" that it was improper to cite to Hayes at all. If I raise it on the talk page after "losing" that discussion, I'll be accused of tendentious editing. Until then the consensus is that it is inappropriate for a BLP to include an article by a political opponent. Jane Mayer is a political opponent. Therefore, per the precedent of the consensus established on the Bill Moyers page, Jane Mayer does not belong in this article, and any other result would be a double-standard for POV-pushing. If someone wishes to reopen the Bill Moyers discussion, I'll be happy to participate in it. The fact that you defend the double-standard... THF (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes good sense to me. If there are any facts in the Mayer piece, then they should be able to be sourced elsewhere. It's not cool to include an opinion piece like this in a BLP. Just like it's not fair to the topic to have a straightforward "Jane Mayer thinks" section. The article is not about that. -Digiphi (Talk) 16:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These problems identified by multiple editors still haven't been addressed, but Dylan Flaherty unilaterally removed the tag today. Not acceptable. If other editors wish to raise Dylan's unacceptable editing conduct in an RFC/U (including personal attacks, edit-warring, AGF violations, and POV-pushing), I will join their efforts. THF (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doherty's book has twelve pages about Koch. It's awfully curious that the only words quoted from Doherty's book is the same material that Jane Mayer slanted in her hit piece. I can't imagine a good-faith reason to ignore everything else Doherty wrote about Koch except what Mayer thought important. If nothing else, it's plagiarism. THF (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler explanation is that Doherty is being referenced through Mayer's piece. It's perfectly normal to use an indirect reference. Dylan Flaherty

By the way, calling it a "hit piece" is not at all accurate, so your argument is not persuasive. All you're doing is revealing how your bias twists your perceptions. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's plagiarism to use Author X's cites to Author Y without crediting Author X. Of course, crediting Author X in this case would reveal how WP:UNDUE the reliance on a single article is. THF (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured Mayer didn't need citing as the article appears to be a reliable source. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hit piece" is accurate, per the multiple sources I cited above that have neither been refuted nor included in the article. Again, the issue is one of consistent BLP standards. The right-wing version of Jane Mayer is not allowed to be cited in articles about left-wing BLPs, even when their reporting hasn't been refuted as Mayer's has. Therefore, Jane Mayer is not appropriate for BLPs. THF (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Others above don't think those sources are reliable. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim of plagiarism, nonsense. You only need to cite X if you haven't checked Y yourself.

If you think this violates BLP, go report it. I've told you where. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. My attention to the Tea Party page has naturally consequently drawn me here. Hi Dylan. THF has something in his concerns about citations. The policies do suggest tracking down Y and citing it directly, and if not, then directly quoting the text in which Y is borrowed from in X. −Digiphi (Talk) 03:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And THF, if you find relevant information in Doherty that isn't in the article currently then you can just go ahead and add it. —Digiphi (Talk) 17:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did this fix it? I originally posted it more in that form, but thought maybe it wasn't necessary. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this works either, because you are presenting hearsay that is qualified as such in the original source as though it had been asserted as fact. In the New Yorker, this reads like this: "That November, the Libertarian ticket received only one per cent of the vote. The brothers realized that their brand of politics didn’t sell at the ballot box. Charles Koch became openly scornful of conventional politics. “It tends to be a nasty, corrupting business,” he told a reporter at the time. “I’m interested in advancing libertarian ideas.” According to Doherty’s book, the Kochs came to regard elected politicians as merely “actors playing out a script.” A longtime confidant of the Kochs told Doherty that the brothers wanted to “supply the themes and words for the scripts.” In order to alter the direction of America, they had to “influence the areas where policy ideas percolate from: academia and think tanks.” The "long-time confidant" is an unnamed source (Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops), and this type of thing had anyway better be in a reception section. --JN466 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the underlying text in Doherty (p. 410) is, "One longtime Koch lieutenant characterized the overall strategy of Koch's libertarian funding over the years with both a theatrical metaphor and an Austrian capital theory one: Politicians, ultimately, are just actors playing out a script. The idea is, one gets better and quicker results aiming not at the actors but at the scriptwriters, to help supply the themes and words for the scripts—to try to influence the areas where policy ideas percolate from: academia and think tanks. Ideas, then, are the capital goods that go into building policy as a finished product—and there are insufficient libertarian capital goods at the top of the structure of production to build the policies libertarians demand." Doherty then goes on to mention the Kochs' support to the Cato Institute and the Institute for Human Studies, describing this support as a "means to increase the amount of libertarian capital goods in order to create more of the ultimate political consumer good of libertarian policy." In Doherty, too, the source of this analysis is unnamed. --JN466 21:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doherty adds in a footnote (p. 689) that the Kochs have adopted a more pragmatic approach in recent years, becoming "big donors to Republican candidates such as Dole and George W. Bush while continuing more radical libertarian funding." --JN466 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit in regards to your comments JN466, thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. --JN466 09:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many reliable sources about how the Obama administration has engaged in a coordinated attack against Koch for his political opinions. None of them are in the article. THF (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure? I only recall people saying that David Koch was secretly funding attack ads. And "coordinated attack" is hardly neutral language. In fact, it sounds deeply paranoid. Abductive (reasoning) 15:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. What sources are you talking. Would you post, say, two of them? I agree, it could be considered a little spooked. But we can certainly discuss them on this page.

What do you have? =Digiphi (Talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources with your statement so we don't all think ^{[citation needed]} at once again. Otherwise you're not helping us improve the article, in my opinion. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that is a sensible conclusion to make from a variety of stories but I don't think that there are WP:RS stories that have made it. I can't see how one would include it here without WP:SYN problems. MBMadmirer (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only editor that thinks the above subject heading should be struck as it appears to be bullshit? -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. If you're not aware of the numerous reliable sources discussing the coordinated attack of the Obama administration on Koch for his political views, it is because you're relying entirely on the Mayer article for your opinions about the Kochs. [11] [12] [13] THF (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a quick Lexis search actually confirms the Obama administration's attack on the Koch brothers. President Obama, in what appears to be a thinly-veiled attack on David Koch who after all is an oil man, said that "oil companies and other special interests are spending millions to gut clean-air standards and clean-energy standards." Frank Rich, an op-ed writer for the New York Times, has pretty much made the Koch brothers public enemy number one. I'm hesitant about putting anything up about Barack Obama and the Kochs brothers for the simple reason that we would then have to get into the motives of George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc., who give heavily to Democrats, rather than stating merely that they gave money. Let's look at verifiability, rather than try to suggest some kind of malevolent motives or something. Shootbamboo, what say you? Your edits are mostly fair. Maybe we should change it to the the Far Left's attack on Koch Brothers? That seems fairer... Heinleinscat (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Obama part of the far left? Dylan Flaherty 03:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heinleinscat, I suppose that Obama reference could very well be partially directed to Koch Industries. But that's the problem—^{[citation needed]}. We can't use our own WP:OR here. I also suppose it would be a "counter-attack", after all, if it exists. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could just as easily be a knock against BP. BP is known for it's poor record on the environment and for recently donating to conservative Republican candidates with "encouraging" records on that issue. But, again, it's all WP:OR. Dylan Flaherty 03:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] THF (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) I looked at the links you just provided, and it seems that Austan Goolsbee may have done something untoward regarding Kock Industries. But the crazy thing is, Goolsbee is said to be a Libertarian by the last source. What is to be made of this? It certainly doesn't look like a coordinated attack by the Obama administration, more like political infighting. The sad thing is, Libertarianism as envisioned these days has a huge hole in its logic: What if people want to live under a highly-regulatory, income-taxing federal state? Abductive (reasoning) 05:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not what that article says. It's not just original research to claim that these reliable sources are describing "political infighting," it's a positive misrepresentation of what these sources say (or an appalling example of miscomprehended reading). Why not just report what these sources actually say instead of trying to recharacterize it in a way that exonerates Mayer's role in water-carrying for Obama? I also reject your suggestion we turn this talk-page into a chat-room about the merits of libertarianism. THF (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shootbamboo, you asked for a citation. Here's one from Obama's Austin August 9th remarks^[2]: “Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country. And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s a big oil company, or a big bank. You don’t know if it’s a insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it’s good for their bottom line, even if it’s not good for the American people."

Given that Americans for Prosperity received money from the Koch brothers and that the brothers are on record praising it, it seems that Obama is attacking it. It's not OR.

Oh, and Dylan Flaherty, Obama's the biggest recipient of BP cash, so he likely wasn't attacking them.^[3] Seems obvious that he was attacking the Kochs... (Heinleinscat (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Doesn't seem obvious at all. Unless the Kochs are things we don't know. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He mentions oil companies and Americans for Prosperity, both of which we know the Kochs control. Does he need to specifically say "Koch" for you to be OK with it? Or are you just biased against the Kochs? (Heinleinscat (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

WP:AGF. Yes, as a matter of fact, it does need to specifically name Koch. Obama spoke out against secretive billionaires funding attack ads. But the Kochs deny such funding, right? So he can't be talking about them. Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, the press has treated them as being related and Kochman is chairman of the board of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. ^[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinleinscat (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, I do accept your good faith. Please accept my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinleinscat (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anyway, Obama's statements are either true or not, but cannot be characterized as attacks. They are more like rhetorical questions, which some people might find the answer to be, "get out and vote." Abductive (reasoning) 08:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would point to examples like the President's chief economic advisor saying that Koch doesn't pay taxes on a conference call and then back pedaling. The Treasury department's investigator general has opened an investigation, according to the Washington Post MBMadmirer (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• THF has brought good sources to the table there, at 05:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC). We should cover that material. --JN466 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Most are blogs and op-ed columns. But I agree that the fracas with Goolsbee should be mentioned either here or at the Koch Industries page, depending on what Goolsbee said. Abductive (reasoning) 11:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have stated there is an NPOV problem with this article. The NPOV tag indicates an NPOV dispute. A single editor (or even two or three editors) don't get to unilaterally decide that the dispute is over. The tag has been removed multiple times without once someone asking me if I felt the concerns were addressed. I've raised multiple concerns over the last few weeks, and only one of them has been partially addressed. THF (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your feelings. Perhaps there is a better tag that would please all concerned? Maybe {{too few opinions}} or {{Pseudo}}? Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that there is an NPOV problem with this article, which I think is about right.(Heinleinscat (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The tag merely alerts interested readers to look at the talk page, which may lead to a longer, better article with better sourcing. I don't think the average reader is capable of understanding what is wrong with the article as it stands, which is why I suggested the more specific tags. Abductive (reasoning) 07:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soros has donated a much larger (in terms of percentage of his fortune and total dollars) sum to political causes than Koch, but the political component of the Soros article is a much smaller percentage of that article than it is in this one. In the Soros article, there are two footnotes (out of a much larger group of footnotes) to Byron York (both to publicly-available factual issues without any opinion), and zero to David Horowitz (who wrote a whole book about Soros). This article, working with a much smaller group of sources (though dozens of neutral sources are available) has five footnotes to the partisan Jane Mayer--and several other footnotes to sentences that parallel the Mayer article, but were admittedly harvested from other sources to promote Mayer's point of view. THF (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles is noted for keeping a low profile. This leads to a lack of anything to say about him.... Abductive (reasoning) 11:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided hundreds of sources. That's more low-profile than Donald Trump or Paris Hilton, but it's more high-profile than the vast majority of BLPs on Wikipedia. Stop using "low profile" as an excuse for violating NPOV. THF (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Koch Industries donated $1.15 million to candidates. This is both false and an allegation of a felonious campaign finance violation. The cited source doesn't even make this claim. THF (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strange that you removed the entire sentence, rather than the disputed clause. In any case, the donated money came from Koch Industries and its employees and is therefore legal. Abductive (reasoning) 11:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the removed text says, which makes a huge difference between legal campaign contributions by 80,000 individuals and illegal corporate campaign contributions presumably directed by an individual CEO. In any event, unsourced material doesn't belong in BLPs, period. Neither does WP:SYN or WP:COATRACK. Koch Industries has 80,000 employees, so why are the individual decisions of the other 79,999 relevant to this article? THF (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you suggesting Koch in no way influenced the people whose paychecks he signs to contribute? I suggest you think twice before you endorse that view. Dylan Flaherty 02:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in your personal opinion. WP:NOT#FORUM. A BLP consists of reliably sourced material, and not your synthesis or original research. If you have evidence of Koch committing felonies by paying people to give campaign donations, take it up with the U.S. Attorney rather than Wikipedia. THF (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying he never gave speeches to his employees about who to vote for and who to contribute to? I just want to hear you address this directly. I want you on record. Dylan Flaherty 04:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on what happened or didn't happen is irrelevant. My original research doesn't belong in the article any more than yours does. If you have a reliable source discussing Charles G. Koch's role in donations by Koch Industries employees' contributions, we can include text about it. If not, not. See WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and well, just about all of the Wikipedia policies, which you seem to think are irrelevant. THF (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the text said. What the text said would have been illegal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research to include contributions by Koch's employees along with his personal and corporate contributions. See http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org/news/koch-industries-money-assures-influence-112th-congress Dylan Flaherty 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, find a reliable source. That error-filled blog you cite isn't one. THF (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, that's an inaccurate description, so my point remains. Dylan Flaherty 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an accurate description. It's a blog, and it states that it is quoting the other articles; so, even if it weren't a blog, it is not a reliable source for the information in the quotes, only for the quotes, themselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of people that this article warrants a NPOV tag given that much of the information in the story comes from Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece. I have suggested, though, that if we use that piece, we should have a section on the response to it.

Perhaps we ought to write a section explaining what the criticisms of the Mayer piece have been? It looks a lot like it has undue influence, as is. I recommend we move on to a more diverse range of sources.(Heinleinscat (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There seems to be a serious imbalance here, with criticism of Mayer exceeding Mayer's original points. Dylan Flaherty 02:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A seperate, sub-section maybe? Or perhaps we remove most of the sourcing of from the New Yorker article as it seems to be fruit of a poisoned tree... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.129.210 (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do is only use the Meyer article for statements of fact, and only if that fact cannot be found elsewhere. The opinions and speculations in that article can be left out of this article completely. Bonewah (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt at whitewashing is a violation of WP:NPOV and will be reverted. Dylan Flaherty 04:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it white-washing to ask that an article riddled with factual errors be removed from the sourcing when that sourcing can be found elsewhere?(Heinleinscat (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The opinions (and interpretations) expressed in the Mayer article clearly fail WP:BLP, even if it were an otherwise reliable source. And since its accuracy is questionable, it should only be used for facts which cannot be sourced to unquestioned reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Kate Zernike (book and articles)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.206 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Kate Zernike? I see no credible (weaker than reliable) connection to this topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Kate Zernicke's New York Times 20.October.2010 article "Secretive Republican Donors Planning Ahead" there is a copy of the Palm Springs conference invite on Koch Industries Letterhead dated "September 24, 2010" from Charles G. Koch. Appears public denials and private actions by the Koch family are not the same. (As you would already know Arthur Rubin, per Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin 500 history... 99.155.153.253 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Charles supports AFP and/or AFPF. That's all that could be said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, thank you so much for your personal interpretation. However, as per these weird rules we have to follow, I'm obligated to ignore you and go with the reliable sources, instead. I'm sure you understand. Dylan Flaherty 03:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the weird rules say you have to actually work with your fellow editors, rather than act unilaterally. Im sure you understand. Bonewah (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, work with them to follow what the reliable sources say. I'm glad we're in agreement and only hope Rubin will join us. Dylan Flaherty 04:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree we have to follow what the reliable sources say. We do not agree on which sources are reliable or what they say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Arthur you have yourself agreed that the Mayer piece passes the RS test. Just saying. What's getting lost here is that it is a reliable source for Jane Meyer's opinion. It's an opinion piece.

It is not a reliable source for reporting in the article her opinions as facts. The other editor wants to have his conclusions presented in the article, and use the source to support them, instead of just presenting the source as it is. The source is not the support you want it to be. —Digiphi (Talk) 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are donations by employees potentially relevant? It certainly would not be relevant without some indication of the total income of those employees (almost certainly not available) or the number of employees donating. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they could be relevant for the Koch Industries page. It seems less relevant to the CEO himself ans should probably be removed. Charles Koch has been involved plenty in politics in his own right. MBMadmirer (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253323/democrats-cant-blame-koch-brothers-however-much-they-might-want-kimberly-o-dennis (COI disclosure: I know Kim Dennis.) THF (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry THF, but I don't see any facts in that article other than the argument she's making that the Kochs are being unfairly singled out for their political activism, while other billionaires who favor left-wing causes are not. That may well be so, but we don't want to go about citing right-wing publications to counterbalance left-wing ones undue influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinleinscat (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I tend to agree with Heinleinscat, but I don't see any facts in Mayer's article, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer in order? Arthur Rubin states Libertarian Party (United States) candidate ... COI ... Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin? 99.88.230.248 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. She doesn't attack the LP or libertarianism, she attacks the Kochs, their organizations, and the TP. I don't consider the TP libertarian, although a Koch was the LP VP candidate in ''yyyy''. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, it is always interesting to hear whether you consider the TPM to be libertarian, but I'm sure you understand that some of us base our beliefs on reliable sources instead of simply agreeing with your unsupported conclusions. As for your COI, I think we've dealt with it already. Dylan Flaherty 05:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this should really be at Koch Industries rather than on this page. The underlying issue is whether or not Koch Industries pays its taxes and Koch Industries general counsel, Mark Holden, is the person talking to the press. Thoughts? MBMadmirer (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir. I could get down with that. -Digiphi (Talk) 16:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I half-way agree. According to what's reported the displeasure of the WH concerns AFP and them, so its relevance works for me. I'm considering changing the section title from relationship with to criticism or tension or locking horns (or something whatever). What do you think? —Digiphi (Talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that AFP is associated with David H. Koch -- he is on the board of the 501c3, AFP Foundation. So by that argument, that should be a David Koch story. And much of this material is on that page. But most of the content is specifically about Koch Industries. MBMadmirer (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koch Industries is closely held by Koch and it acts in the political arena, so we cannot clearly distinguish it from Koch himself. Dylan Flaherty 05:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate articles and WP:BLP is clear - material relevant to the "industries" is not then also to be placed in the separate BLPs as well. Enough wikilinks exist that readers need not be shown the same contentious material repeatedly. Collect (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. Charles and David own 42% each of Koch Industries, which means they have complete control. Our reliable sources indicate that they take full advantage of this, to the point that there is a thin line -- or in some cases, none at all -- between political activities by the two brothers and by their company. For example, the biannual "Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity" is hosted by KI, not just Charles personally. Dylan Flaherty 16:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Bill Gates owns a large chunk of Microsoft - but Microsoft topics are not in his BLP. If the KI article did not exist, you might have a point, but it does exist, hence material should not be duplicated for the sake of duplication in the BLP. Collect (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Charles chairs a meeting sponsored by Koch Industries. So shouldn't it be in Koch Industries? The Goolsbee claim was that Koch Industries didn't pay its taxes, not Charles and David. And Koch Industries responded, not Charles or David. I think that AFP is a different case, as we both noted above. However, that is much more clearly associated with *David* not *Charles* so it is not clear that it should be on *this* page. So why should all of this be on the *Charles* page? MBMadmirer (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no analogy here: MS is a publicly-held company, whereas the two Koch brother own 84% of their company outright! It is inevitable and necessary for the three articles to have some overlap in material, reflecting their overlap in the real world. Any argument for placing some text in Koch Industries is not an argument against keeping a version of it here, as well as on David's page. Dylan Flaherty 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your criterion is whether the company is publicly held? Consider Trump Organization , Inserra Supermarkets, Modell's Sporting Goods and so on. WP does not make that a criterion for articles. Collect (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? How about we put the content in the Koch Industries page and put a link to that page into the political/advocacy sections of charles and david? MBMadmirer (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That's not what we do in other cases such as this. Dylan Flaherty 14:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some pages that are good models for this? I am genuinely puzzled about the way to handle describing Koch in Wikipedia. I see three or four interacting areas: (a) David and his activity, (b) Charles and his activity, (c) the activities of Koch Industries, and (d) the activities of the various foundations. I suspect that we should come to a consensus about how to handle all of these and implement them across all the pages. My instinct is that the corporate form of Koch Industries (and its subsidiaries) and the foundations should be recognized and separated. You seem to think not. To make this worse, the reporters who write on this are sloppy in writing about it, and some of the political actors who write and/or speak about it deliberately try to blur the lines. Achieving consensus on that would be very helpful for a lot of the issues in these pages. MBMadmirer (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's so puzzling about the notion of looking at them as a family? Before corporations and all that, this was the basic unit of organization, and it's clear that KI still adheres to it. The reason reporters have reported on all of these related entities together is that they are quite literally related, both genetically and in terms of what they're doing.

There are multiple cases of a Koch aiding an organization through one path, then aiding it further through another; should we ignore this because the paths differ? For example, after founding the Cato Institute and CSE, Koch continued to fund them indirectly, funneling millions through his Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. This sort of complexity is what has allowed people like Melissa Cohlmia to mislead by sticking to the very literal truth. Now you're following in her footsteps.

We need to report on the events as they actually are, as our reliable sources support. If this means repeating a section under David's bio, then again for KI, and still again for one or more of their foundations, so be it. A good model of this is the pro-life article, which doesn't omit issues even when there are other articles that go into greater depth. The idea here is to avoid relegating any relevant information to minor forks. Dylan Flaherty 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was an advocate for creating the Koch Family page and have no issues whatsoever with doing that. My broader issue is that there are different, incomplete, and inappropriate versions of their activities in the various places. And the argument that "it's nebulous, and so this thing has to stay even though it isn't really appropriate" (for example a legal dispute where white house staff are saying that the company doesn't pay its taxes ...) doesn't help improve the quality of the pages and the accuracy of wikipedia.

I would be an advocate for making a canonical version of each substory (conflicts with the white house), house it in an appropriate page (Koch Industries, in that case, given that Charles Koch isn't mentioned in any of those stories) and then have a one or two sentence summary in the pages of the relevant people with a See Also link. That's what the Pro-life page does with a section on abortion and Hinduism that is relatively small and then a link to Hinduism and abortion page for more details.

I guess that what I don't understand is why you don't think that would improve the readability, completeness, and accuracy of wikipedia on these subjects. Could you explain that some more?MBMadmirer (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to practice vs. theory. In theory, having a single location where a topic is covered would be ideal. In practice, it can very easily become a content fork ghetto. Even if we have a single location, we still need fair, accurate but compact summaries that link to it. This is often harder than covering the material in the first place. Compound this with the fact that some parts of the material are more relevant to certain articles than to others, and this becomes a very difficult matter in practice.

This is why we should start by making sure each article stands on its own. Only then can we look for similar material across articles and determine if we can combine it. Dylan Flaherty 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My primary criterion is that it is CLOSELY held. Two people own almost all of the stock, and they're brothers. This is very different from MS. My secondary criterion is that it is private, which increases the amount of control that the two brothers have over it. Dylan Flaherty 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the examples I gave are not closely held? Not private? Nope. Collect (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Bill and Melinda Gates own 84% of MS? But you're right about one thing: it's closer than "closely held", the correct term is "closed". Dylan Flaherty 20:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you do not understand that other companies with WP articles are "closed" (weird choice of wording). Collect (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Closed" is the correct legal term, but that's not the full picture.

It's worth noting that large private corporations often have a significant number of investors, including institutional ones and vested employees. In other words, they're not under the control of one or two people. Now, contrast that with KI. See the distinction? Dylan Flaherty 03:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that explains what "closed" means? Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are any number of sources [19] that list "closed" as being equivalent to "privately-held", including Wikipedia. However, the issue isn't just that it's closed, but that there has been a failure to maintain arm's length relationships with related entities. It's up to a judge to decide whether this is sufficient to pierce the corporate veil, but it's up to us to decide whether to report on the corporation and its two real owners as separate but related entities. Dylan Flaherty 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this section isn't filled in with a list of current objections, I will remove the tag in 24 hours. This is a point of order, enforcing WP:NPOVD. Dylan Flaherty 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quit violating WP:MULTI. The reasons for the tag have been restated multiple times over the last month in sections above, including in an edit I made today. A removal of the tag will violate WP:NPOVD. THF (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you link to is irrelevant, as this talk page is the correct forum for discussion of the article. Likewise, you appear not to have actually read WP:NPOVD. If you cannot mention some current objections, then I will follow WP:SILENT in concluding that there are none. It's actually very simple for you to comply. Dylan Flaherty 15:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. THF made a current objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, Rubin, if they made an objection, why isn't it here? Thought so. Dylan Flaherty 17:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned several things that seem like WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues. I would point to: the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Relationship with the Obama Administration section are about a dispute with the company, while the first paragraph is about a story in which one of Obama's senior advisors who names Charles by name. I also think that the Political activities section gives short-shrift to the idea that giving to think-tanks and universities is about ideas. I think that a better framing would be something like 'Koch says he gives money for X, Y, Z, although some environmental groups have challenged that these help the company ...' Frankly, I think that the right answer is to create a philanthropy section (like David Koch's page) that mentions the criticism. I think that saying that giving money to a university program (even a free market one) is a political activity is inherently a non-neutral POV MBMadmirer (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what we can do about this:

1) Ok, the latter paragraphs of the Obama section are out. They're not precisely about Charles, and they amount to a play-by-play that offers no insight and little of interest.

2) The political activities section isn't very well written at this point, probably due to damage caused by content disputes, but everything in there belongs. Almost all of the recipients are Libertarian think tanks, with the one exception being a scholarship specifically for Libertarians, and that's definitely political. Moreover, the section includes items that are political but not at all philanthropical, such as the biannual meeting. Now, if Charles is a notable philantropist, then it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of references to politically neutral contributions, which can all go into a philantropy section. Find some references and I'll be happy to help you get the section in place and fix up the language.

Anything else? Dylan Flaherty 16:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a thought: the Obama section looks small and one-sided now. I'm just going to collapse it and move its contents into the political activities section, since it's about the Obama administrations criticism of those activities. BRD applies, of course. Dylan Flaherty 16:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I have no issue at all moving those paragraphs that you whacked into Koch Industries, although, as you say, they aren't very well written. I just went to the Charles Koch Foundation site and found some stuff that might be relevant including Young Entrepreneurs Kansas. His official bio also mentions the Bill of Rights Institute (and has an interesting paragraph about how he sees it all related). Media Matters, no friend of Koch, puts the Charles Koch Foundation at 2.6m, twice the next largest donor. MBMadmirer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, the Young Entrepreneurs Kansas and Bill of Rights Institute are more educational than political, although this is certainly consistent with Koch political philosophy. Those two items would be fine for a section on philantropy. (But please don't editorialize about MM being some sort of enemy.) Dylan Flaherty 18:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also moved Views up front, because it makes sense to explain his politics before listing some of the political activities he's supported. While we're at it, do we really need to enlarge the section on his management theory? If there's really that much material out there, I'm not opposed to giving it an article of its own, but I think we should still keep the section here at about the current size. MBMadmirer, what do you think? Dylan Flaherty 17:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page on the book already, The Science of Success, that is actually Charles' explanation of what the MBM is. MBMadmirer (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. Based on this, do you still think we need a bigger MBM section here? Dylan Flaherty 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all of the unaddressed problems I identified above, the current version violates NPOV because it has a full paragraph about criticism by the Obama administration without once mentioning that attacks by the Obama administration have been criticized by multiple reliable sources. I've already provided sources on this above. THF (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, we've been done this road before. MBMadmirer suggested removing the other two paragraphs from that section and I agreed. If you have any references that don't run into the problems that the removed ones had, share them and we'll make room. Dylan Flaherty 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad that my comments about the POV tag got those issues discussed again, but it doesn't seem as if any significant ones remain. I'm not claiming the article is perfect, but let's take down the badge of shame for a bit while continuing to work on making it better. It's had a dunce cap on for long enough!

I urge you to respond here with any further POV concerns so that we can resolve or dismiss them, as necessary. Dylan Flaherty 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the unjustified demand to repeat myself on a near-daily basis and I resent the fictional claim that the complaints I have had for over a month have been addressed when they have been endorsed by other editors above, yet not addressed in the article. (1) There either needs to be a five-footnote paragraph in Bill Moyers summarizing Stephen Hayes's article about Bill Moyers, or the Jane Mayer material needs to be deleted here; otherwise, BLP and NPOV is being inconsistently observed. (2) Furthermore, I suggested over a dozen sources rebutting the unfair criticism of Koch from Mayer and the Obama administration, and none of them has been added; more than dozen exist, so nothing stops you from doing the research to find another one if you don't like the dozen I suggested. The article violates NPOV by only telling the slanted side of the story. (3) Finally, the article violates WP:RECENTISM: nearly every cite is from the last twelve months, and I provided over a hundred sources from the previous three decades that would avoid the UNDUE problems this article currently has.

All of these concerns have been discussed in detail above and endorsed by other editors; none have been fixed. If Dylan threatens to remove the tag again without addressing any of these three problems, I will ask other editors to join me in an RFC/U. He needs to stop edit-warring and pretending other editors' concerns don't exist. THF (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Bill Moyers canard is pointless and needs to stop. There is far more public material available about Moyers, and the talk page of that article is the place to debate weighting the sources. Abductive (reasoning) 10:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a canard. The stated reason for deleting the Hayes article from the Moyers piece was not because "other sources existed" but because Hayes had a partisan point of view. So does Jane Mayer. Thus, per the consensus interpretation of BLP and NPOV, the Mayer article cannot be used here; I refuse to accept Abductive's claim that it's acceptable to apply one standard for left-wing figures and a different standard for right-wing figures. Even if Abductive's revisionism was correct, there are hundreds of neutral sources about Koch, but this article most heavily relies on Mayer's slanted and inaccurate piece without even attempting to balance it. So the article violates even a looser standard of NPOV. THF (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my standard. What I'm saying is comparing articles and making demands that this article change because another article is unfair is not correct. Two wrongs don't make a right. Argue about the Bill Moyers article on the Bill Moyers talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 11:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a Wikipedia standard, either. Dylan Flaherty 11:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other editors that this is not a Wikipedia standard, I do, however, think we ought to dial down the Jane Meyer given what THF has already pointed out. The direct attacks from Obama need to be restored as well. Simply because he doesn't call the Kochs out by name doesn't mean he hasn't called them out. (Heinleinscat (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's why I suggested moving them to Koch Industries. They are relevant overall, but they seem to focus more on the company. MBMadmirer (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Guess what, BLP and NPOV are inconsistently observed. Articles are judged on a case-by-case basis and by whoever happens to be interested, so this is to be expected. Regardless, whatever issues you have with Bill Moyers, you should go to Talk:Bill Moyers to hash out. This is not the place, as we are in no better position to effect changes in that article than you are. Nor are arguments based on some unrelated article going to carry much weight here. In the end, I think you need to adapt to the understanding that Wikipedia is not a courtroom and does not follow case law and precedent. If it helps, think of it as your complaints about Bill Moyers having no standing in this venue.

2) I'm always willing to consider links to reliable sources that can survive WP:UNDUE. Post them here.

3) That's not even what WP:RECENTISM is about; you need to re-read it, this time slowing down for comprehension. The simple fact is that Koch has been a minor public figure for decades, but he's been thrust into the public eye over the last few years, so we should expect our sources to be recent. However, while our sources are recent, the content is not. We're covering things like founding the Cato Institute in the 70s as well as the rise of KI since the 60s. After due consideration, I see no merit to this complaint.

Ultimately, you need to bring good sources and good writing to the table, not these attempts at WikiLawyering. Otherwise, you will be rightfully frustrated by your inability to contribute. Dylan Flaherty 19:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lecturing others requires some experience not had by others. You have 2.6K edits total, with a total of eight hundred on articles. THF has 15K edits, with over 6K on articles. I have 13K edits, with over 3K on articles. Collect (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you trying to suggest that THF is somehow slow to learn the basics? If so, it would hardly be appropriate! Instead, we should focus on the content.

If you have any comments about the content of my posting, feel free to share them. As for THF's history, rest assured that I'm fully aware of it. Dylan Flaherty 02:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute. You remove the tag so indicating. And them point me to WP:NPOVD -- which is precisely what you should read before edit warring by removing tags! Amazing! Collect (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't a dispute. There was one, but that's done now. If you think there is one, all you need to do is open a section and list the items in dispute. If you can't, then that speaks for itself. Dylan Flaherty 12:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Monty Python. [20] Collect (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dylan, for admitting the article violates NPOV by adhering to inconsistent standards of neutrality. I've already listed my sources above. I'm not repeating myself. Fix the article and get consensus before removing the tag. There are multiple editors who responded to your most recent challenge who have endorsed my complaint. THF (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, that's hardly an honest response now, is it? I'm absolutely certain you realize that I said no such thing.

What I did say is that Wikipedia does not offer a guarantee of consistent policy enforcement, so complaints about other pages carry no weight.

Speaking of carrying no weight, while it's true that refuted arguments are a kind of argument, they're not the kind that's needed to justify a tag. For example, your attempt to hold this article hostage to force changes in another is laughable. Likewise, your failure to understand WP:RECENTISM is not our problem. Dylan Flaherty 12:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments have been endorsed by a majority of editors on this talk page. I fail to see why your Argument Clinic response and ipse dixit is a "refutation."

If you disagree with the BLP standard established at Talk:Bill Moyers, then please go there and reargue the point; I can't do so. Until then, the consensus is that it violates BLP to include partisan articles. Your insistence that it's okay to have an inferior standard of BLP enforcement on pages of right-wing figures suggests POV-pushing. I've already listed dozens of sources you can use to fix the other problems in the article. Your pretending that you don't know what those are suggests bad faith and harassment; I see no reason to repeat myself when you ignored me the first time I mentioned them. Use the control-F function if you really have that much trouble finding my earlier comments on this page discussing these issues, issues which remain unaddressed. THF (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are some POV issues here. THF, I have made some suggestions, adding some philanthropy material, shrinking the battle with Obama Administration section, etc. Would you have some specific edits? MBMadmirer (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't, I will once again remove the tag. Dylan Flaherty 01:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for demonstrating your bad faith. I've made specific suggestions over the last six weeks; others agreed with those suggestions; you've ignored them. Use control-F and respond to what I've actually said instead of pretending I didn't say anything. WP:NPOVD doesn't require me to repeat myself on the talk page on a daily basis. Say something new instead of cluttering up the talk page with meta-discussions and threatening to continue to edit-war. If you remove the tag again without consensus, I will seek a topic ban. THF (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when you make suggestions and nobody listens, that may well be an indication of something. For example, it might mean that the suggestions are not being accepted as valid. Or it might mean that they're tendentious to the point where no actual change is expected. Those are two possible reasons. Perhaps you can think of a few more. However many you do think of, I suggest you rule them all out before you dare accuse me of bad faith. There's a huge COI pit below you. Dylan Flaherty 10:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be fun to count the number of talk-page edits you make insulting me without specifically addressing any of my specific suggestions. For example, I specifically pointed out a specific NPOV violation today in a four-week old section of this talk page where the problem still hasn't been resolved (and, in fact, has been made worse), and instead of specifically responding to that, you made a personal attack in this section. Hardly an indication of a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue; you seem more interested in WP:BATTLE, which is why I don't wish to waste time engaging with you. At least you've stopped lying and saying that I haven't made any specific suggestions. THF (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may well have lost track of your complaints, so it would be in your interest to summarize them. As far as I can tell, the NPOV "violation" you're talking about is your bizarre theory that this article should be held hostage to the content of Bill Moyers. If so, that was laughed out of the courtroom. Do you mean something else? Dylan Flaherty 11:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try a dose of WP:AGF and accept that some strange editors actually believe that WP:BLP is a strong policy which must be followed on WP. Include Jimbo on that list, by the way. Collect (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I'm all for WP:BLP, but how does it relate here? Dylan Flaherty 11:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, the good news is that there's a consensus here now that these need to be addressed. Can you humor Dylan and summarize your suggestions again so that we can start hacking away at these? Let's just move the ball forward and not re-litigate past disagreements. MBMadmirer (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, he has edited Wikipedia since you made this request. Dylan Flaherty 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not curious at all. WP is egalitarian, and requests do not have any force whatsoever in such a case. Meanwhile, you would be quite well advised to stick to discussions about edits, and rerain from comments about editors. See WP:Cup of tea for some sound advice. Collect (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely and completely reasonable to wonder out loud about why an editor hasn't responded to a query. Dylan Flaherty 12:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also absolutely understandable that beating a dead horse does not get one anywhere. WP is not the place to assault other editors, and a cup of tea is seemingly required at this point. Collect (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume good faith by concluding that you never meant to suggest that commenting on an editor's absence was akin to assaulting an editor. That would be an absurd and hostile leap, so you would never do that. Dylan Flaherty 15:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are using "assume" far too much for a rather irrelevant misinterpretation of what I wrote. As I noted, you are currently beating a dead horse. I suggested a cup of tea. You appear not to desire to follow that advice. Collect (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: at some point, the lack of a response will trigger WP:SILENT. Dylan Flaherty 18:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Perhaps it should be put more bluntly - admins appear to be discussing your appearance as a Minerva sprouting forth from the head of Zeus - and questioning Zeus' identity. Argumentativeness does not ameliorate their view of you nor does simple refusla to have a cup of tea impress them. Collect (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the pagan references offensive, and I much prefer coffee to tea. As for their desperate attempt to link me to pretty much anyone who has already been banned so that I can be summarily banned, the number and nature of the candidates are clear indications that they're grasping at straws in their attempt to justify their goal. However, I cannot be the sock puppet of someone who does not exist, so unless they mess up the technical part, nothing will come of this but their embarrassment. Dylan Flaherty 22:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that your education failed to teach the classics then. While Zeus is pre-Christian, the word derives from the Sanskrit - which became "Deus". God. Collect (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing the word with the concept. The concept of Zeus is the specific supernatural entity worshiped by the ancient Greeks. This entity, if it existed, is not the Judeo-Christian God; its attributes are incompatible. The word Ζεύς eventually led to another word in a different language which was then used to refer to a different entity. I hope this bit of linguistics and natural-language philosophy makes your tea go down easier. Dylan Flaherty 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read. [21] for one example. The origin is Sanskrit (written c1200 B.C.), and predates Hebrew (written dates to about 300 B.C.). By a lot. Likely from a meaning of "light bringer". Note also the Biblical origin "Let there be light, and there was light." Greek was not the "origin" by over a thousand years. Collect (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but any connection to Koch seems to have been lost some time ago, unless you're suggesting that Charles is actually Zeus, in which case you're going to need a more reliable source. Dylan Flaherty 23:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- the one making a big deal out of a classic metaphor was you. And you also seemed not to be familiar with the etymology of "Zeus." Collect (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A partial list of my suggestions are summarized above at 09:53 12 December, and I don't have the time or desire to reiterate them daily to preserve the fiction that Dylan will listen to me the 12th time when he ignored me the first eleven times. I've been busy with real life in court, as anyone googling could have readily determined. Someone please explain WP:DEADLINE to Dylan. If you want to make a tiny dent in things, start with Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Mercatus_Center, which was similarly ignored. You can search for "THF" throughout this talk-page for other suggestions, including links. No one's added Kim Dennis's refutation of the attack by Obama, for example. THF (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those were either accepted or dismissed. Do any remain? Dylan Flaherty 04:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan, your personal opinion divorced from policy does not equal "consensus." Several editors agreed with me. That you immediately dismiss everything I say and refuse to address the legitimate policy concerns I've raised merely demonstrates that there is no point in engaging with you; it does not mean that there isn't a dispute. THF (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, you're being hostile and uncooperative. I just said that the items were accepted or dismissed, which means that some were accepted and acted upon. You have been asked, by multiple people over the course of multiple days, to do us the courtesy of listing any items that you believe are open. At this point, your refusal to do so must be understood as an admission that no such items exist. Thank you for taking the time to clarify this for us. Dylan Flaherty 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My specifc 09:53 12 December summary of problems still has not been resolved; nor have any of the other problems I have identified on the talk page. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#NPOV_tag, Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Mercatus_Center, Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Continued_NPOV_problems_and_POV-pushing, Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Doherty_cites, Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Obama_administration_attack_on_Koch, and Talk:Charles_G._Koch#A_good_source_for_balancing_the_political_discussion, inter alia. Several editors agreed with me and have added the tag themselves in response to Dylan's edit-warring to remove the tag. Despite the fact he has refused to engage with me, Dylan removed the tag again. This is arguably vandalism, WP:TEDIOUS disruption, and POV-pushing; Dylan has refused to collaborate, and insists on WP:OWN of an article that violates WP:NPOV and the WP:BLP standards established at Bill Moyers. I will support a topic ban if someone wishes to raise a RFC/U, but I will be out of town and away from Wikipedia for several days. THF (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a topic ban is inappropriate for you. I think a regular block will do. Dylan Flaherty 06:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem rather intent at becoming a full-time denizen at ANI with that sort of remark. I suggest a full gallon of tea :). Collect (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, I demand that you reveal any WP:COI with tea manufacturing and distribution concerns! Your pro-tea, anti-coffee agenda has become quite clear. Dylan Flaherty 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no COI therewith. Period. Collect (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've added the diff to the database that contains my Nixonian enemies list. If I ever find any evidence of your teetotaling bias, you can be sure that I'll report you immediately., and probably get blocked for a week as a result. But don't worry, you can be equally sure that THF will act as your attorney. Dylan Flaherty 18:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I identified several problems above in response to multiple harassing requests that I relist problems I have listed multiple times. Several editors agreed with me; a WP:ANI discussion agreed that I had appropriately included the tags. None of the problems I identified have been resolved; there have been zero substantive changes to the article. Yet Becritical removed the tag in violation of WP:NPOVD. Not cool. THF (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy co-founded the Cato institute and that's not in the lead?? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 10:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The lede was stubby. THF (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a newcomer to this article, I'm wondering what POV and undue weight issues it has at the present time? Can someone give a summary of what outstanding issues remain? Thanks BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely you should start by reading this entire talk page. Collect (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck no. If the outstanding issues can't even be listed, they aren't clearly enough defined to merit tags. This page is mostly people being nasty to each other, for about 17,000 words. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - they most certainly do merit the tags. The tags only mean that there uis a dispute over some of the material - such as, for example, the Mayer editorial piece. Most of the editors here are not badgering other editors, but I suppose if you see such badgering, that would qualify as being "nasty." Issues include, but are not limited to, how Mayer should be handled as a source, whether charges of crimnal activity require stronger sourcing than has been provided (see WP:BLP and so on. Collect (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim of criminal activity made in the article. That was a misundertanding created by poor wording and misinterpretation of campaign finance law. Abductive (reasoning) 01:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing this for a while, but this claim of criminal activity is news to me. Dylan Flaherty 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[22] for example. "You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation." Which would be, on its face, a claim of possible illegal activity. YMMV. Collect (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, that quote is from some guy named Obama. Second, it was removed from the article, even though it clearly belongs. Thank you so much for disproving your own argument. Dylan Flaherty 01:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of editing opportunities in this article, but as Dylan suggested I'll avoid such editing till, at least, people can state what's wrong with it. Otherwise it's too unstable, but it's too bad there are disputes which can't even be explained. I think that if there is a real current dispute there should be a way to summarize it, and I do request that the current issue be explained in summary. The section "POV tag redux" is impenetrable. What would people think of the suggestion that this material be sandboxed so we can see exactly what is being suggested? Such was requested above "Can you humor Dylan and summarize your suggestions again so that we can start hacking away at these? Let's just move the ball forward and not re-litigate past disagreements. MBMadmirer" but apparently not done. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with anything that leads to forward movement. I've once again requested THF to spell out his gripes. You can see the result for yourself. Dylan Flaherty 02:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really trying to cut through the bad blood here. I can see where he'd ignore a request from you because he's mad at you, but might respond to an outside party. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MBMadmirer is an outside party, and quite sympathetic to the Koch's, much like THF. Both of them have certain COI issues, in fact. Nonetheless, MBM asked twice and was not rewarded with a useful answer. Dylan Flaherty 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this is true then I think it is indeed right to remove the tags. Tags are for issues which can be clearly defined. But please don't remove it again till he has another chance to respond here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that. THF just edit-warred, accused me of vandalism and called me a liar. Made quite a stink on WP:ANI but nothing came of it. Dylan Flaherty 03:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well, I would say give a good long chance for a response here- at least tomorrow night. Then remove the tag. If an issue is made of that, ask if they want to explain. But if not then I would be willing to take it to AN/I myself. One can't just have a tag on an article without explaining. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's no insane rush. Apparently, the fine folks at AN/I deny that this sort of issue is their problem, so don't go there. Check out WP:DR for the official list of ineffective steps. Dylan Flaherty 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that previous AN/I thread? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here.Dylan Flaherty

Thanks. Do you consider the National Post and The Washington Examiner to be RS? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Post more than the Examiner, but both have notably strong conservative POV's. Dylan Flaherty 06:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noted the conservative POVs, but we regularly use liberal media as RS and I've never heard of the usual level of political bias being a problem in using sources as RS. Anyway, we could also use this as a primary source for their POV. What I'm missing here (rather than usable sources for both sided of the arguments) is, again, that no one is suggesting what the text ought to look like. Of course, it may be posted above. Is it? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't just bias, but quality. In particular, it turns out that Examiner.com, which is the online version, is not a WP:RS. The Washington Examiner is likely an RS, but it's not exactly great.

I'm fine with using the Koch's response to the New Yorker feature, but as you said, the real problem is that the complaint isn't actionable. It's not clear what changes -- if any -- will satisfy those who wish to keep the tags in place. Given this, there isn't much point trying to satisfy them. Dylan Flaherty 07:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The present article doesn't seem to violate WP:NPOV, but, until Dylan understands why many of his edits to the article did violate WP:NPOV, the tag probably should remain. At least, re-adding the tags when Dylan makes his WP:POV edits should not be considered a reversion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, you're an admin, so you know that these tags are to report current issues, not as prophylactics. Since you agree that there are no issues now, you should remove the tags. Dylan Flaherty 13:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course the tags are meant for current issues. Rubin, I will be happy to work with you to make sure POV edits don't remain in the article in the future. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tags as they are currently being used seemed to be more as a form of protest than to highlight any specific and current ongoing dispute (which, reading through this, I still cannot find). This sort of "badge of shame" use of tags is specifically prohibited. They are meant to be temporary and for specific issues, not a general proclamation that someone simply doesn't like the tone of an article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If the parties interested in keeping them on the article don't respond I'll take them out tonight, and we'll see where things go from there. Do you know offhand the link to the specific prohibition against using tags this way? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in WP:NPOVD. Dylan Flaherty 02:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At what point did that essay become policy? I would like to see the discussion where it was thus labelled. Collect (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At what point did you offer any reason at all to keep those tags? Dylan Flaherty 02:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not policy. Nevertheless, it's obvious, and I'm sure we can rely on it. I'm going to take the tags off now. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just for the record, I'm fine with either or both tags being reinserted if and only if they're accompanied by concrete complaints here. Dylan Flaherty 13:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Dispute_over_tags, and Dylan has had zero substantive response, despite several dozen edits (including false personal attacks and whining about getting spanked at ANI for making a frivolous complaint there) to the page since I relisted the list I listed several times. Stop your WP:BATTLE games. THF (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physician, heal thyself. You're the only one that seems intent on WP:BATTLE here. You attack editors on the talk pages, you attack them in your edit-summaries, you never miss an opportunity to assume bad faith (even going so far as to actually say the words "bad faith" when attacking other editors). It's time to return to civility. A few deep breaths and a step back might be in order. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I previously read the section above on the dispute over tags [23] and other material, though not all THF points to. Basically, in absence of active discussion, and in absence of a clear summary of what is supposedly POV about the article, the tags do not belong. Neither is it appropriate to give people orders on their talk pages. The consensus of editors here seems to be first, no one can figure out what the current problem may be, because THF won't give us a specific and understandable summary of problems. Second, the consensus is that in the absence of known problems which other people agree are problems, the tags do not belong. The conclusion to which that brings me is that anyone who thinks there is an NPOV problem with this article needs to actively participate till the problem is solved or till the consensus is that there is no problem. And anyone who thinks there are NPOV problems here needs to clearly communicate what the problems are in such a way that both regular and new article editors can easily understand them. Simply listing many former talk page discussions is not sufficient. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Dylan cluttered the talk page with a dozen irrelevant threads persohally attacking me making it hard for you to follow is not my fault. I pointed you to my list of complaints. Collect figured it out. That you refuse to does not give you a basis for removing legitimate tags. You admit yourself that you haven't even read my complaints -- what basis do you have for removing the tags? THF (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, why are you being rude and evasive? I never personally attacked you, and you refused repeatedly to provide a list of active complaints. Due to the latter, I am removing the tags. There is no basis for them, no consensus for them, not even an excuse for them. Your agreement is not necessary. Dylan Flaherty 01:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, your edit comment is incorrect; ANI had no consensus on the issue. They were just deeply annoyed that I dared bring it up in that forum, and they also recognized that you were indeed uncivil. Dylan Flaherty 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, THF, I would really like to see a link to a discussion on AN/I which supports your edit-summary claim that there was an "AN/I consensus that the tags were appropriate." Please correct me if I'm looking at the wrong discussion, but your claim appears to be blatantly false. The only consensus seems to have been that AN/I isn't the place to discuss such things. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THF, you can avoid all this by giving a good summary of the purported NPOV problems. The threads above are not sufficient. There certainly could be changes needed in the article, but you have to be more forthcoming, and you have to state what changes you want to see. Please make a new header and summarize below. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if THF decides to give us some concrete complaints, I'd rather either reject them or accept them than insert tags. Dylan Flaherty 02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he has real complaints which he can express, it seems he has the right to put the tags on. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expressed them multiple times. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Dispute_over_tags. As for ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Drive-by_tagging_and_false_accusations_of_vandalism, where DF's frivolous claim that I inappropriately added tags was unanimously rejected, and his removal of the tags was called "disruptive." THF (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that discussion can be construed as a consensus that the tags themselves were appropriate. Rather the discussion seems to have focused entirely on process. Your claim is simply false. Since you have not had any any reservations about directly referring to other editors as "liars" I would suggest that the accusations and insults you frequently hurl might be more appropriately applied to yourself. Or, as the Yiddish expression goes, "when you point one finger at others, you're pointing the other three at yourself." --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several admins said that Dylan shouldn't remove the tags. I haven't called anyone a liar who hasn't lied, and Dylan has repeatedly lied by saying that I haven't provided specific issues and repeatedly lied by saying that I was the only one to add the tag when three other editors added the tag. THF (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you just goad Dylan for, to quote you, "getting spanked at ANI for making a frivolous complaint"? And now you make the exact same frivolous complaint there (and are receiving the same reaction)? Again, physician, heal thyself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see Dylan overwhelming ANI again with lots of lies. I haven't seen any administrators disagreeing (or agreeing) with me. THF (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is likewise uncivil. Apologize. Dylan Flaherty 04:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he's taken this to AN/I. Dylan Flaherty 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The false accusations of the repeatedly uncivil THF have caused this article to be protected for a few days. While it's protected, THF and all who agree with him are welcome to list their NPOV/UNDUE complaints here. If there are still no concrete, actionable complaints when the article is unlocked, any credibility that THF might still have left with regard to this issue will be understood to have dissipated. This is it, THF: I'm calling your bluff. Dylan Flaherty 04:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An incomplete list of concerns that I have stated and restated and relisted for months now, but here's a start:

1. The article overly relies upon the partisan New Yorker hit piece that was refuted by multiple sources, but there's no balance or acknowledgment that the New Yorker article is inaccurate. See sources listed at Talk:Charles_G._Koch#NPOV_tag

1b. There's serious question whether BLP even permits the use of partisan sourcing. At Bill Moyers, there was consensus BLP prohibits even discussing an article by Steven Hayes, even for purposes of NPOV balance of other points of view about Moyers, because Hayes is partisan. Jane Mayer is partisan. If BLP is to be consistently enforced, then either the Mayer article cannot be used in this BLP, or fair discussion of the Hayes expose' should be added to the Moyers article. See discussion at Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Continued_NPOV_problems_and_POV-pushing.

2. The discussion of the Obama administration attacks on Koch are unbalanced. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#A_good_source_for_balancing_the_political_discussion and Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Obama_administration_attack_on_Koch.

3. A partisan quote from a partisan source falsely attributed to NPR inaccurately describes the Mercatus Center. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Mercatus_Center.

4. WP:UNDUE violations. Compare George Soros, who gives both more money and a larger percentage of his money to political causes, but whose political activity (and criticism of his political activity) is a smaller part of his BLP. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Comparing_this_article_with_George_Soros.

5. WP:RECENTISM violations. A several-decade long career, with hundreds of articles written about him over the decades (see cites at Talk:Charles_G._Koch#NPOV_tag), but nearly everything is from the last five years, and a majority from the last year.

6. There is next to no discussion of Koch's early life and career, despite the availability of biographical material such as Koch's own book.

Alas, this will probably get buried, and I'll be asked to repeat this list yet in under a week. I have three briefs due in $70 million of cases over the next couple of weeks, so Wikipedia is going to take a back burner over the holidays. THF (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for summarizing your complaints. Unfortunately, they were neither novel nor compelling. Rather, they were arguments we reviewed and rejected, often more than once.

Briefly:

1) I fully support adding any response from Koch, but all we have left of Mayer is a single line. If anything, that piece is highly notable and deserves more space, not less.

1b) No, no, no. You don't get to point to Bill Moyers or George Soros and pretend they matter. If those articles are broken, go fix them. You arguments here need to rest on their own merit, not imaginary case law.

Start by showing how WP:BLP prevents us from using reliable sources on the basis that they are not individually neutral. Good luck with that.

2) How, specifically, is it unbalanced? There are comments from Koch against Obama and there are comments from Obama reps against Koch. In fact, we had more Obama comments, which were cut without explanation. If anything, it would add balance to restore them.

3) The article identifies the Mercatus Center (formerly the Center for Market Processes) as being in favor of deregulation. Is this a disputed claim? If so, on what basis?

4) We can only report on what we have reliable sources for. If you believe there should be more about social causes, the right answer is to find more material about social causes and add it. If you cannot, then this means it's not unbalanced; there's just less to say about the topic.

5) This was brought up before, and thrown out because there's simply no truth to it. The article does mention some events in the last few years, as Koch has become more prominent in light of his involvement with the TPM, but it also has plenty of material about events that occurred decades ago. Each and every section spans decades.

Dylan Flaherty 05:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]