Talk:Koch network: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:27, 8 December 2013 editMrX (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,648 edits →OpenSecrets: Striking a comment. The diagrams are licensed for CC-non-commercial which is incompatible with WP:IUP ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:23, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,109 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]
(390 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header\|search=yes }}		{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{Old AfD multi\| date = 30 January 2011 (UTC) \| result = '''no consensus''' \| page = Political activities of the Koch family }}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes \|class=C\|listas=Koch Family, Political Activities Of The\|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography \|politician-work-group=yes \|politician-priority=low }}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=Low \|American=yes\|American-importance=high \|libertarianism=yes\|libertarianism-importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Environment\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Kansas \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Low \|UShistory=yes\|UShistory-importance=low \|USPE=Yes\|USPE-importance=low}}
			}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|cc\|brief}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|tpm\|brief}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 6		\|counter = 8
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 6
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(~~30d~~)		\|algo = old(180d)
	\|archive = Talk:~~Political activities of the~~ Koch ~~brothers~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Koch network/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Auto archiving notice \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=1 \|units=month }}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes		\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}

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

	== ] ==		== Total whitewash ==

	I don't see the relevance of the chain of "donations" noted, even if they were adequately sourced:

	*Charles Koch (now) chairs the "Knowledge and Progress Fund". (probably )
	*The "Knowledge and Progress Fund" has "given more than $3.2 million in recent years to DonorsTrust".
	*DonorsTrust gave nearly $7.7 million to the ] in 2010. (blog entry ''hosted'' at ])
	* (not in this article) David Koch chairman of AfPF.

	and the unsourced: "DonorsTrust provides funding to a variety of conservative political advocacy groups and groups that support climate change denial. "

	I don't see how any combination of these statements is helpful for ''this'' article, even if there isn't an implied synthesis in combining facts to create a connection. — ] ] 18:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

	:The climate change denial connection I would agree is tenuous and synthesized. The Donors Trust connection is neither, given that we have multiple sources which connect it as an indirect beneficiary of Koch funds. ] (]) 18:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

	:<s>The content is relevant in that it relates to well documented funding of climate change deniers by the Koch brothers, via various shell organizations that they use to distance themselves from the stink. Forbes (blog or otherwise) is certainly a reliable source for this, and the author of that article makes the connection, so synthesis is not required by us. The other source, corroborates the Koch contributions to DonorsTrust, mentioning that they are DonorTrust's largest contributor

	:This article is about the Koch brothers using their massive financial resources to manipulate the political landscape in the US. It's not a new story, but it is one that is rife with new revelations, some of which we must include in this article to portray the subject in a complete and objective manner.</s> - ]] 19:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm retracting my above comments. On closer reading of the sources, there is not a connection established between Koch contributions and climate change denial, which would in fact make this content original research. - ]] 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

			:''...Stand Together, a nonprofit focused on supporting community groups. The stated priorities of the restructured Koch network include efforts aimed at increasing employment, addressing poverty and addiction, ensuring excellent education, building a stronger economy, and bridging divides and building respect.''
	:::My mistake above; we do have a source (cited in the ] article) for the association of ''that'' organization with climate change denial. However, a Koch chairing (but not necessarily funding) the "Knowledge and Progress Fund" which donates to DonorsTrust which donates to AfPF (which is also chaired by a Koch) does not create a connection between the Kochs and climate change, and only minimally connects the Kochs to DonorsTrust. There may be other connections between the Kochs and DonorsTrust, but I don't see what we have here as adequate, unless we establish that either K&PF is a major funder of DonorsTrust or DonorsTrust is a major funder of AfPF. That it is a major funder needs to be established by a ''single'' source, not separate sources for the amount that A funds B and for the total funding of B (or total donations of A). — ] ] 02:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::I also want to assert I have no idea who may have posted as {{user\|97.182.165.176}}; I'm not sure the ''entire'' paragraph should have been deleted, but I'm not going to violate 3RR by deleting and restoring the same material.... — ] ] 02:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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

			== Charles Koch Institute funding of AstroTurf organization opposing mask mandates in schools ==
	I fail to understand how this fits in this article. This article is about the ''political activities'' of the Koch brothers. There is no political activity mentioned in this section. They take no action at all. PBS executives, apparently protective of their donors, make calls to a vendor. Thats the only activity. No activity from the Kochs at all. Perhaps this could be in the relevant BLP.] (]) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I agree -- that section was POV and argumentative entirely, and not related to the topic of the article. ] (]) 12:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I would actually add this section to PBS or New York Public Television articles. They are the active players in this section.] (]) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Possibly -- but not in ''this'' article. I would also note that since Mayer already has a section in this article, that adding ''more'' sections for her specific opinions is UNDUE per ] as well. ] (]) 15:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I've restored some of the removed content, as it seem very relevant to the subject and adequately sourced. The Mayer material is not really the same as in the criticism section (which really should not be a separate section). I would note that this article is not so narrow in scope that we should take a literal approach of every word being an "activity." To do so would be fairly absurd and unfair to our readers who would benefit from appropriate context. - ]] 17:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::This article is very heavily reliant on the one author, hence UNDUE hits hard. Would you have us reprint her entire article? ] (]) 18:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Much of the Koch articles should be moved to "Meyer's opinions about the Kochs" and removed from the main articles. That being said, this section is not duplicative, but should possibly be moved to the Meyers subsection. — ] ] 18:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	:The Koch Brothers' contributions to PBS are charitable rather than political activities. That should be clear from the programs they have supported. Even if they opposed a documentary about themselves, that cannot be seen as a political act. ] (]) 18:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I see no reason to include the PBS text in this article. Let's be clear. Some nonprofits may change their activities to avoid losing key donors. Some donors might contribute to some nonprofits for that reason, so it is a possibility for any donor or any nonprofit. But clearly, there is no RS which states that this has occurred or that it is the Kochs' intention. The inclusion of this material in the current article is massive SYNTH and should be removed from the article. ]] 14:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

			The Charles Koch Institute is a "major benefactor" of the Independent Women’s Forum, a dark money nonprofit organization that opposes efforts to combat the coronavirus through mask mandates in schools. The group circulated a template letter to its members encouraging them to personalize and mail it to "your own school superintendents and administrators, principals, and teachers!" Among other things the proposed letter falsely asserted that "young kids do not significantly spread COVID either" and claimed that "common sense" teaches that requiring masks in school may lead to anxiety, depression, decreases in socialization skills, and increases in tooth decay in children.
	reverting of removal of unsourced adjective "anthropogenic." I can guess what that means, but I'm sure most people cannot and I didn't see any source in the whole section explaining it, not to mentioning saying that the Koch's themselves supported it. Even ]'s article only mentions the word once in the publications list, so who would even know if he uses it? Let's put up a section tag for additional references til someone finds one. Thanks. ''] - <small>]</small> 02:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

			In an effort to be responsive to User William M. Connolley's remarks, I have edited the entry as follows:
	So there is a new attempt to try and attack the Koch Brothers. However, none of the articles tied to the Freedom Partners states that the Koch Brothers are directly involved with Freedom Partners. I realize that there are ongoing attempts to try and make the Koch Brothers look like bogymen, but these guilt by association attacks are not appropriate for WP. Furthermore, just because some clearly biased journalist are trying to link the Brothers directly to the group does not mean that they are. ] (]) 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Alleged editor's motive aside, the Koch's fund and influence the Freedom Partners. In fact, they even disclosed it. You may want to read the source articles to better understand how the political activities of the Koch brothers include their involvement with this organization, and the research done by Politico et al that connects Koch's "dark money" with FP. I don't understand why one would assume that the Koch's being involved with Freedom Partners is necessarily a negative. Check out their website . - ]] 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I did read the articles, none make a direct link between the Koch Brothers. They certainly try to make the link with the Political article implying a nefarious action by the Koch's. Without some RS's that actually state with some evidence that they are actively directing this group, it is out of scope for this article. This article is about ''their'' activities, not the activities that others claim that they are linked. ] (]) 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::{{tq\|"...none make a direct link between the Koch Brothers."}} I'm sorry, but that's absurd. See the quotes below.
	:::There is no ] policy that supports idea that the Koch's funding of political organizations via another organization is outside of the scope of an article about Political activities of the Koch brothers. Here are some direct quotes from our sources:
	:::*
	:::*
	:::*
	:::*
	:::*
	:::*
	:::- ]] 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

			"The Charles Koch Institute is a "major benefactor" of the Independent Women’s Forum, a nonprofit organization that opposes efforts to combat the coronavirus through mask mandates in schools. The group circulated a template letter to its members encouraging them to personalize and mail it to "your own school superintendents and administrators, principals, and teachers!" Among other things the proposed letter asserted that "young kids do not significantly spread COVID either" and claimed that "common sense" teaches that requiring masks in school may lead to anxiety, depression, decreases in socialization skills, and increases in tooth decay in children."
	:The Koch Industries website has a page about Freedom Partners. Reliable sources say that it is funded by the Koch brothers and supports U.S. conservative causes. I do not see anything wrong with mentioning their involvement. ] (]) 22:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

			The citations are to the Washington Post and a letter posted by the newspaper.] (]) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
	::From the Political article. "Koch-linked entities provided a “minority” of the funds and that the largest single donor gave about $25 million." The fact is that the donors are private. I realize that several liberal outlets are trying to make the link and trying to make it as nefarious as possible at the same time. If it truly is a political activity of the Koch's than simply find a source that ]'s it. As such, all it is, are allegations that it is funded by the brothers. Without ], a cornerstone of WP there is no way to include it as is. Additionally, the section is written about what Freedom Partners has done and is written like a ]. ] (]) 22:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Arzel, none of your comments has any bearing on whether or not the edit is accurate and should be included. ] (]) 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::I agree. The material is well-cited, relevant, and appropriate. ] (]) 01:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::So you both agree that ] does not matter for this. ] (]) 15:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

			==To add to article==
	== Problem with the term "Dark Money" ==
			To add to this article: mention of the Koch brothers's political data analytics company called ]. ] (]) 02:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
	I got reverted for using the term ]. Is there a more precise term to describe this? ] (]) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	:No, this is the correct term. ] (]) 23:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	::The dark money article says it is a slang term. See ]. And the article itself is POV laden. The scare quotes only makes the POV problem worse. Maybe correct in some people's opinion, but that is not how we write WP articles. – ] (]) 02:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::According to our article, ] which runs the website is nonpartisan and independent. Looks like they're mostly reporting numerical facts about campaign spending - see for example. What specifically do you find POV in the article? If there's objection to the term "dark money" I suggest we reword the sentence to read: "At least one fourth of the contributions in the 2012 election campaign that were unreported until after the election, were made by groups associated with the Koch brothers", or something along those lines. ] (]) 23:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::It's the term '']'' that is the problem. The article goes beyond defining the term ''as slang'' and includes statements like "Yet despite disclosure rules...", "a ... court ruled that all groups spending money.... However, this ruling was overturned on appeal." "Theory of Required Disclosure". etc. Such information belongs in ] and ]. And once that is properly done, then this article can benefit from using the terms. But slang is not acceptable. – ] (]) 23:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	:Isn't the correct term "soft money?" ] (]) 04:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	::Well, the source says "dark", but WP does not use slang. Given that "dark money" has so much POV built in, we should stay away from this source; otherwise, we are misquoting the source. ''But'', there must be other, quality sources that lay out how much cash they've bestowed on arts, medicine, education, and, oh yes, politics. Indeed, would we use the term "dark money" to describe their non-political donations? I don't think so. – ] (]) 04:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::We are not "misquoting the source" – ] requires us to reformulate what the source says, in our own words. Slang or otherwise, "dark money" is a commonly used explicable term – and no, it doesn't include any of the philanthropy you enumerated, it refers to electioneering. I've changed the article to paraphrase the source without using the term "dark money", and anyone is free to improve upon it. If you want to contest the source, ] is thataway. ] (]) 08:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::We have to be careful here. Is dark money the same thing as soft money? ] (]) 08:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::No, they are not the same thing. Soft money describes contributions made to ''political parties'' for "party building" activities. ] (]) 10:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I realize that the Koch's make a good target for the left, but it gets a little tiring to see people continuously attack them here. I would remind you both that this article is about the Koch brothers. Not about what some other groups that have some links to them do. ] (]) 15:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::If your "you both" comment was directed at me, I take offense at you characterizing me as part of "the left" – if you were to examine my voting history you'd see that's far from the case. I'm not "attacking" the Kochs or anyone else – just trying to address the objections by some editors to the use of the term "dark money". ] (]) 19:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Soft money was unlimited "nonfederal money" from corporations, unions, and individuals that they could contribute to political parties for activities intended to influence state or local elections. Dark money is an epitath and new slang. ] (]) 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Another minor aspect of the sourcing problem stems from the fact that it is an OpenSecrets''blog'' comment. Yes, Maguire is an investigator with ], but is he giving us news ''or'' analysis? – ] (]) 19:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Probably analysis. ] (]) 19:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Can we be at all sure that it's not commentary? — ] ] 04:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Arthur, this article mentions the Tea Party directly. You're under a topic ban. ] (]) 04:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::This article is not in the tea party portal. By that definition, you have been editing a lot of LVM articles. ] (]) 05:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Arthur is banned from the topic, broadly construed. I'm banned from a single article, which I haven't so much as glanced at. Arzel, you are entirely mistaken and not at all helpful. Please mind your business. ] (]) 06:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::You mean kind of like your little snipe on my talk page? You should read up on ]. ] (]) 14:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Back on topic, edit is clearly against consensus and must be reverted. ] (]) 06:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:Come to think of it, although this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the TPm, the article apparently does, so I shouldn't be editing it, per my topic ban. However, {{ping\|MilesMoney}} is a relatively new editor whose style looks familiar. A checkuser against him and the topic-banned editors seems a good idea. — ] ] 16:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

			== Content dispute ==
	::"Come to think of it"? The four previous warnings didn't cause you to think about it. Your penitence seems a little empty given that you now find yourself at ]. Perhaps you could explain why , in violation of ]. Are you thinking of that now too? - ]] 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::Arthur, I'm very disappointed by your behavior. If you hadn't retaliated against me with this bizarre accusation, I'd be in your corner right now on ]. Maybe I was wrong about the value of experts; they have to be fair and reasonable people in order to contribute. I won't be defending you again. ] (]) 20:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

	===OpenSecrets===
	I don't see this as a minor issue either. I suggest that the Center for Responsive Politics, an advocacy organization receiving significant funding from George Soros, may not be a RS for characterization of lawful non-profit contributions of their political opponents. I find it interesting that they characterize the non-published contributions of private individuals, companies, groups, and foundations as "dark money". CRP says in the ref that an astounding $274 million was spent in this "dark money" anonymous contribution system in 2012 and that 25% had "ties" (undefined) to the Kochs. Somehow this entirely ignores the anonymous political spending by unions which was many times that number. According to well-publicized news reports, spending by merely the AFL-CIO headquarters and its affiliated unions climbed to $608 million in the 2009 and 2010 election season from $452 million in 2005 and 2006. They spent $316 million in 2011, a nonelection year, amid the fight with Mr. Walker in Wisconsin. ] (]) 20:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
	:What are you talking about? "Dark money" is money coming from interest groups that are not required to disclose their donors to the public. OpenSecrets clearly mentions '''labor unions''' here in this intro. There is a page at the site called ''"Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2014 Cycle"'' which clearly shows contributions to '''Democrats''', and when you look down the list you can see '''Public Sector Unions''' at #17. The purpose of OpenSecrets is disclosure of money in politics and I have no problem using them as a source. '''Regarding the Koch's''', the source that was reverted here states, ''"<u>In 2012, more than a third of the record-setting haul brought in by the Koch's flagship nonprofit, Americans for Prosperity -- $115 million -- came from three dark money groups tied to the Kochs that did nothing but give out checks: the Center to Protect Patient Rights (CPPR), Freedom Partners, and TC4 Trust. CPPR's tax filing was first leaked to the Daily Caller.</u>"'' ---- ] (]) 21:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

			{{Ping\|William M. Connolley}}{{Ping\|172.110.60.4}}{{Ping\|JPxG}} I'm opening this discussion because I think all of you made good points in your edit summaries but we aren't supposed to converse through edit summaries we're supposed to converse on the talk page. The IP stated when they added the text "John Birch Society mention added, given the significance and relevance to political activities" which at first glance appears odd given there being no mention of the John Birch Society in the body. JPxG countered with "not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS)" which is very reasonable given that it does not appear in the current body. The IP replied "Misplaced Pages is the "reliable source" for Fred Koch being a co-founder of John Birch Society" which I believe is a misunderstanding of the relevant policy. William M. Connolley reverted with the edit summary "this is the koch bros article, not the sins-of-the-fathers-unto-the-7th-generation article" which touched on none of the reasons JPxG brought up nor did it provide any basis in policy or guideline for the summary, this appears to just be their personal opinion. The IP countered with "Fred Koch's co-founding of the John Birch Society is relevant, given that son Charles Koch was also a member. This is an article about the politics (!) of the Koch brothers, and failing to mention to the connection to the John Birch Society would be to hide relevant factual information." which despite their previous misunderstanding of policy does actually appear to be a nearly infallible ] argument. William M. Connolley ends with "as before: no, this is about the sons" which is again bizarrely wrong and besides the point but no matter because the revert was legit. Now here's my problem, when I search "John Birch Society" I actually find it in the sources, we appear to already have a number of sources specifically for this claim, however it appears to have been scrubbed from the article. I will delve into the history on this but interested in hearing what you guys think, I'd especially like to hear more of Connolley's rationale for non-inclusion about info about the father of the brothers. I've just never heard anyone make an argument like that and if it has any basis in policy or guideline I'd like to know because I sure as heck can't think of any. ] (]) 16:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
	::::'''Insert''' That was off point. The opensecrets blog post that we are discussing is ''not'' their well-respected FEC database. It is opinion or analysis. The ref'd post talks about $274 million in "dark money" political spending (undefined) and asserts that "Koch linked" (undefined) spending was one fourth of that spending. That ignores the billion plus union "dark money" spending entirely. Why? We don't know. The blog post doesn't explain or address it. It is an opinion, an advocacy piece. This particular CRP ref is only reliable source for it's opinion. Further, the fact that "dark money" can not be defined makes this an invalid, inappropriate and controversial addition. ] (]) 19:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::It's really a moot point – that text is also cited to a secondary source, the ''Kansas city Star''. We could also add some of the other refs that ] enumerates below – even without the ref to the CRP webpage, the sentence is still properly cited. ] (]) 01:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Hmmm. No, the KC Star quotes the OpenSecrets blog entry. It's not a secondary source for validity, only for notability. However, "Dark money" is defined, and ''we'' don't know how much union money was dark in 2012. OpenSecrets didn't report that information, for some reason. (I'm shocked.) (And, none of this relates to the TPm, as it cannot engage in lobbying or political contributions.) — ] ] 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::The Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets blog is classified under news and and analysis, and certainly seems reliable. One way we know that is that other reliable sources cite it. Of course, blogs are not inherently unreliable anyway. Robert Maguire's "dark money" research has also been cited by .
	:::::::{{ping\|Arthur Rubin\|p=}}, your presence here would seem to a violation of your ARBCOM imposed topic ban, a fact that you were warned about and about proxying . Is it necessary to go to ] to get you respect your topic ban? - ]] 03:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::And Arthur, don't be shocked – the CRP reports union funding of liberal dark money . Also, I don't see any mention of a secondary source validity/notability distinction at ] – is there another policy that covers it? In any case, it can be attributed to the source in–text: "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, at least one fourth of the "dark money" contributions in the 2012 election campaign were made by groups associated with the Koch brothers." ] (]) 03:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Arthur's (and my) point wasn't that CRP had ignored or concealed ''liberal'' dark money. They had ignored over a billion in union political spending identified and reported on by WSJ and Washington Post among others. Further, I must note that your CRP ref contains nothing about that vast spending and hence vastly overstates "Koch linked" (however defined) political spending percentages. ] (]) 04:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

	~~:::The~~ ~~key~~ ~~here~~ is ~~that~~ ~~this~~ ~~article~~ is ~~about~~ ~~the~~ ~~brothers~~ ~~political~~ ~~activities.~~ ~~This~~ ~~article~~ ~~already~~ is a ~~magnet~~ for ] ~~issues,~~ ~~this~~ is ~~another~~ ~~good~~ ~~example~~. ] (]) 05:56, 6 ~~December~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		Looking at the history we mentioned their dad's founding position at JBS for years, which is why we still have sources with quotes specifically for it. Will try to find the edit which removed it. ] (]) 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
	::::The brothers perform their political activities through groups that they fund, therefore these groups are relevant to the article. ] (]) 06:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::This is Misplaced Pages, not Get-the-Koch-Brothers-pedia. Let others (like Rachel Maddow) perform their own research about the connections; then, if they are RS, and not pushing POV, and actually say "Koch wrote a check to the Tea Party" we can add it to the project. – ] (]) 06:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Since my comment was not about the Tea Party, you appear to be barking up the wrong tree. ] (]) 06:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::: – ] (]) 06:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::We're talking about ''this'' article, not any others. The issue here is the dark money stuff that Arzel just gutted. ] (]) 06:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::So far, I have heard no policy based reasons for omitting this content. We have primary and secondary sources that have researched and reported on dark money funding by the Koch Brothers through a web of organizations that they fund and/or control, for political purposes. Arzel's and S. Rich's arguments against inclusion are not at all convincing and can be summed up as: "it makes the Koch's look bad". By the way, ] is not a policy or a guideline, nor is it relevant to this content discussion.
	::::::::::Capitalismojo's argument merits some consideration. The Center for Responsive Politics could be considered a primary source but, as Somedifferentstuff rebutted, they present information about political contribution irrespective of party. A discussion about ''union'' contributions is interesting and important in general, but has nothing to do with the subject this article.- ]] 13:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I thought is was pretty clear. That section makes a bunch of allegations about groups linked to the Koch brothers. However, it does not state that this is a political activity of the Koch brothers. It would be far easier to accept these edits as good faith if the same actors were so zelous about attacking their commrades on the left. ] (]) 14:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	*"OpenSecrets determined that the Kochs are outpacing all other groups in giving to so-called “dark money” groups that aren’t required to disclose their donors. In fact, at least one in every four dark-money dollars had links to the Kochs who control the Wichita-based Koch Industries, the country’s second-largest privately own company.<small>Source: '']''</small>
	*"The Koch brothers poured $301 million into politically-active groups in 2012, according to a report from the Center for Responsive Politics." <small>Source: '']''</small>
	*"The CPPR, run by former congressional aide Sean Noble, was recently called a part of the "Koch Brothers' Network" of dark money organizations by California's campaign finance watchdog agency." <small>Source: '']''</small>
	*"A slew of reports released Wednesday reveal that a network of conservative think tanks, funded by multinational corporations and industrialists — most notably Charles and David Koch — comprise a vast dark-money campaign funding mechanism that funnels cash to conservative candidates, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in last year’s recall election."<small>Source: '']''</small>
	*"The CMD report also cites numerous SPN ties to the better-known ALEC, including a grant from Donors Capital Fund, which Mother Jones called the “dark money ATM of the conservative movement,”... According to CMD, SPN’s annual meeting in September included representatives from Koch Industries, the Charles Koch Institute, the Charles Koch Foundation and several Koch-backed right-wing groups like Americans for Prosperity." <small>Source: '']''</small>
	As I've pointed out to you before, there is no ] policy that supports idea that the Koch's funding of political organizations via another organization is outside of the scope of an article about Political activities of the Koch brothers. - ]] 16:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC), 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

			So it was removed in this edit with the edit summary "ALL articles mentioning living people are subject to that policy - in the case at hand, the material is NOT RELEVANT to this article - period." despite the second source being a New Yorker article entitled "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama" which would mean that it was relevant to this article... Period. Perhaps {{Ping\| Collect}} can explain? ] (]) 16:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
	::Your articles above are derived from and restate the CRP blog source. The "Koch link" remains undefined and the term "dark money" also remains undefined slang. So we have controversial and unreliable opinion from an unreliable source for the purpose of advocacy. Hardly a proper addition to a BLP. ] (]) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::Actually, what MrX said is correct. The Koch link is simply that the money comes from the Koch's through the groups they fund. This is all supported by RS. ] (]) 07:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::I strongly support this addition. -- ] (]) 12:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::There are myriad reasons why they might chose to fund various groups - reasons at least as diverse as those groups' observed and stated interests; though there's "no ]" as MrX points out, it stands to reason that we'd still have to demonstrate that Koch companies or the Koch brothers (it's not even defined which example "Koch-linked" refers to, right?) had some intent to fund the interests of the secondary organization(s) to which they are allegedly linked by two or more degrees, otherwise. From what I've seen here and in brief searches elsewhere, to my knowledge, no RS can do that, and it's simply not our place to fabricate/demonstrate that kind of firm connection, implied or explicit. ] (]) 12:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::It does not stand to reason that we have to conduct original research. In fact, it stands to reason that ]. Our task is to summarize the Kochs political activities based on our sources, not to "demonstrate" anything. If you think the sources in discussion are unreliable, please be so kind as to take it to ].- ]] 13:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Capitalismojo}}The Koch link ''is'' clearly defined. There are even diagrams, <s>which I'm happy to learn that we can use in this article because they are licensed under Creative Commons.</s> ] ''is'' clearly defined, and it is not "slang". We have an ]; have been written about it; the media has taken note of it; Google has indexed 546,000 occurrences of it. This ''is not'' a BLP. If you still believe that the sources are unreliable, you can take it to ].- ]] 13:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::First and foremost under this article most certainly falls under BLP policy. How can it not? It concerns the political activities of two living people. Second, I have read the source quite carefully. These links are wonderfully weak. One of a myriad of examples. A "Koch linked" group included in this is NFIB. That's f'ing crazy. NFIB has 350,000+ small business members and was founded when David Koch was three. Now its counted in this ref as a key part of the "Koch network" listed because they have the "closest links". I was once involved in NFIB, am I now part of a sinister Koch conspiracy? The answer is no. Another; the 60 Plus seniors organization has 6+ million members are they part of this conspiracy? No. This ref is an (inaccurate) opinion piece by a political opponent of the Koch's. It is not an academic NPOV study of a well accepted political practice. It is not a reliable source and it ''is'' in a BLP. ] (]) 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Also "dark money" was defined on its wikipedia article as slang up right until those arguing the point on this page went to the dark money page and changed it to make it more supportive of their argument. So, yeah, dark money is not a widely accepted and well defined term. Screwing around with one article to make a point on a second article is also inappropriate in my opinion. ] (]) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::As I said, if you don't think the sources are reliable, we can go to ]. If you think ] should prevent this factual, researched, multiply-cited content from appearing in the article, you may open a case at ]. Aside from that, all you seem to have is bare assertions without any factual evidence. Your opinion contradicts our sources and your red herring arguments are not at all convincing. Unfortunately, ''you'' are not a reliable source and your original research can not take the place of reliable sources.
	::::::"Dark money" is not really slang, nor do we seem to have any sources that claim it is. It's more of a neologism, but since that is also not sourced, we can simply call it a "term" (or a "phrase" if you prefer). - ]] 14:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::MrX, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. To be clear, I was definitely trying to convey that we can't do our own ] on this or any topic. While I have no claim, at this moment, regarding the reliability of the sources which have been called into question by other editors (and therefore have no interest in taking them to RSN right now), even those sources don't demonstrate or even clearly claim a direct connection between groups. Stating there is ''would'' be OR. Besides that, other than being a scary-sounding term of at best questionable verifiability and neutrality, there is no indication of why the $86M of "dark money" is even significant in an election season which raised >$2065M (>$2Billion). Lacking any context or clear definition or specifics, it does little to inform readers. ] (]) 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::And I agree that this article, which explicitly names the "Koch brothers" in its title, is pretty clearly an extension of their respective BLPs. ] (]) 23:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::There is nothing wrong with the term "Dark money" which is not only sourced but can easily be clarified within the article to inform readers. And the argument that 86 million dollars isn't ''enough'' to qualify the material isn't even an argument; '''"or more than one-fourth of all dark money spending reported in 2012 -- came in the form of grants from other Koch-linked groups."''' - I agree with MrX that arguing about sources here is a waste of time. Take them to RSN. ] (]) 01:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

			I did the initial revert while using ], so didn't have the chance to look deep into article history, but I think that (barring some other consensus or precedent) William's reasoning makes sense -- the article is about the guys, not their father. That's not to say that information on their family background should be excised completely. Upon some reflecton, it certainly seems UNDUE in the lead, though I can't speak to the rest of the article. ''']'''×''']''' 17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::The solution to any OR issues is to edit faithfully to the sources, which I believe we have done. In ''this'' article we write:''' "At least one fourth of the "dark money" contributions in the 2012 election campaign were made by groups associated with the Koch brothers." ''' Note the absence of the word "direct"<small>This is what I mean when I say red herring, AdventurousSquirrel and Capitalismojo</small>.

			== The article links contraception with abortion -- no source ==
	::::::::Our primary source writes: ''' "At Least 1 in 4 Dark Money Dollars in 2012 Had Koch Links" ''' then ''' "Political money flowed freely in the world of conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch in 2012." '''

			It should seem obvious that opposition to contraception is not significant political movement & that the linking of that with opposing baby-murder is a propagandistic crock. But at any rate, the linking done in the article was deleted on the grounds that it had no source, and the closest citation to this (citation to a previous sentence) did not evidence the word contraception at all when searched. (] (]) 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC))
	::::::::here is a direct quote from a secondary source: ''' "...at least one in every four dark-money dollars had links to the Kochs who control the Wichita-based Koch Industries,..." '''

			== Requested move 21 December 2023 ==
	::::::::and another secondary source: '''' "And of the $170 million in political spending reported by those groups to the Federal Election Commission, CRP estimates about $86 million came from Koch-linked organizations." '''
			<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

			The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. ] <small>(])</small> ] (]) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::So, please explain how original research has entered into any of this, because I'm not seeing it. Of course, we can also take this discussion to ] if folks continue to insist that any of this is original research. - ]] 03:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
			----

	== Full protection ==

			] → {{no redirect\|Koch network}} – The current ] is the "Koch network", this should be the title as well. ] (]) 09:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] (]) 08:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)</small>
	I've fully protected the article for 4 days to encourage people to discuss the issues on this talk page rather than edit/revert the article. If there is a consensus in that time, please use {{tl\|editprotected}} to request that an admin make the edit for. ''Admins:'' I have no objection to you changing the protection at your discretion. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

			:I'm inclined to support because I think it is a well established term and reasonably recognizability, but many of the results are about a math concept. However, the math concept does not seem to have a wikiarticle yet. (] · ]) ''']''' 03:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	== This article is about the ''Political activities'' of the Koch brothers ==
			::I'd argue that this is the ] when moved, so then the math subject need parenthesis disambiguation when added to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
	It's important to note that this article is entitled, "'''Political activities''' of the Koch brothers", not "Political donations" or "Political financing". In other words, providing financial support to a political organization isn't a requirement in order to be included in this article. If they are linked to a political organization in another way, that information is also relevant/admissable. -- ] (]) 03:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:That's true, although they're so rich that they do much of their politicking through funding. ] (]) 03:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
	:Yes, I very much agree. Much of their political activity is in concealing how their money is used to achieve political objectives. - ]] 04:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:23, 10 July 2024

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

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

Article policies

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

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

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

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

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

Biography: Politics and Government

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

Politics: American / Libertarianism Low‑importance

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

Conservatism Low‑importance

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

Environment Mid‑importance

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

Climate change Low‑importance

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

Business Low‑importance

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

Kansas Low‑importance

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

United States: Presidential elections / History Low‑importance

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

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

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

Total whitewash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To add to article

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

Content dispute

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

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

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

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

The article links contraception with abortion -- no source

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

Requested move 21 December 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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