Jump to content

Talk:Charles Koch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


Military service

Charles Koch is a major backer of “concerned veterans for America”. Does anyone know if he served in the military and if not why not , conscription was in force.

Weed

I know lots of people who have smoked for over 20 even 30 years so if u need to do your research over the long-term use u can advertise a way on how to contact you on Facebook and offer money u will get lots of people lining up 2600:1004:B10D:830B:F291:2C9D:6773:65F4 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weed

A Greek translator and a scholar 2000 years ago made a mistake a very crucial mistake in the holy Bible when he was translating it from Hebrew into Greek one of the words he messed up on and that word was supposed to be cannabis which is weed marijuana to us today this Greek translator messed up big time because marijuana was supposed to be legalized for the last 2000 years 100 bucks said if they look at the original holy Bible again and they find this word out in the holy Bible don't you think that marijuana will have been legalized back then and throughout history if it was in the Bible found the word it's in the holy Bible too so I wonder if this gets out and the government acts looks at the original holy Bible and finds the word where it says marijuana in Hebrew or cannabis will be legalized all over the world or were Christianity is cuz God gave us this plant to use that tells you the government and the United and everybody else who has made this thing illegal is really working for the devil if they keep it illegal because if it's in the holy Bible and God even said he gave us this plan for us to use and the government has been denying it for us to be using it was that say you tell me 2600:1004:B10D:830B:F291:2C9D:6773:65F4 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current lede describes Koch as a "business billionaire", but I believe it's better to use a more specific term when possible. In this case, Charles Koch meets the definition of an oligarch:

1. uses monopolistic tactics to dominate an industry;

2. possesses sufficient political power to promote their own interests;

3. controls multiple businesses, which intensively coordinate their activities.

The body of the article support the fact that Koch meets each 3 of these definitions. For the use of a word in the lede, it is not OR to apply a simple definition of a word, when the facts that the definition requires are well supported by citations. However, for those who would prefer to see the word in use:

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2012/09/05/five-oligarchs-whose-names-you-need-to-know.html

2. https://newrepublic.com/article/154636/oligarch-month-charles-koch-george-soros

I've created this page in case there's any disagreement about my edit. Feel free to revert if you disagree.

DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He feets the definition in every way. I also added him to the relevant category on oligarchs. Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MSNBC column is clearly marked "opinion", the American Prospect (where the "former reporter-researcher at The New Republic" was employed) seems to specialize in opinion and declares its "progressive prospective". I believe "oligarch" is a biased label, I disagree with its insertion, let's see whether others do. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it has a negative connotation, but disagree that warrants removal. The Koch brothers are known both to be (1) wealthy (~0.1% of all US wealth) and (2) to have a business interest in, and exert considerable influence on, politics in their home country. "oligarch" neatly summarizes this role. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's OR. Vast majority of sources avoid this phrasing. Best to just leave it as is. One's interpretation of the facts is not RS. Uhtregorn (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To apply the definition of a word based on facts in the article is not OR. Their wealth and influence on politics is well attested in the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]