Talk:Koch network - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrX (talk | contribs) at 04:09, 8 December 2013 (→This article is about the Political activities of the Koch brothers: agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:09, 8 December 2013 by MrX (talk | contribs) (→This article is about the Political activities of the Koch brothers: agree)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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: 30 days

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: 30 days

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Libertarianism

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

DonorsTrust

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 Americans for Prosperity Foundation in 2010. (blog entry hosted at Forbes)
(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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 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. Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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. - Mr X 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. - Mr X 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake above; we do have a source (cited in the DonorsTrust 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). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I also want to assert I have no idea who may have posted as 97.182.165.176 (talk · contribs); 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.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Public Television

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.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree -- that section was POV and argumentative entirely, and not related to the topic of the article. Collect (talk) 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.Capitalismojo (talk) 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 WP:BLP as well. Collect (talk) 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. - Mr X 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? Collect (talk) 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anthropogenic references?

At this diff 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 Willie Soon'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. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Freedom Partners

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. Arzel (talk) 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 freedompartners.org. - Mr X 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. Arzel (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"...none make a direct link between the Koch Brothers." I'm sorry, but that's absurd. See the quotes below.

There is no WP:DIRECTINVOLVEMENT 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:

- Mr X 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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. TFD (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2013 (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 WP:V's it. As such, all it is, are allegations that it is funded by the brothers. Without WP:V, 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 WP:COAT. Arzel (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The material is well-cited, relevant, and appropriate. Arjuna (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So you both agree that WP:V does not matter for this. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the term "Dark Money"

I got reverted for using the term Dark money. Is there a more precise term to describe this? Hcobb (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, this is the correct term. MilesMoney (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The dark money article says it is a slang term. See WP:SLANG. 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. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

According to our article, Center for Responsive Politics 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. Mojoworker (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the term Dark money 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 campaign finance and political finance. And once that is properly done, then this article can benefit from using the terms. But slang is not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the correct term "soft money?" TFD (talk) 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. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We are not "misquoting the source" – WP:COPY 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, WP:RSN is thataway. Mojoworker (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful here. Is dark money the same thing as soft money? MilesMoney (talk) 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. Mojoworker (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 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". Mojoworker (talk) 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Another minor aspect of the sourcing problem stems from the fact that it is an OpenSecretsblog comment. Yes, Maguire is an investigator with Center for Responsive Politics, but is he giving us news or analysis? – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably analysis. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we be at all sure that it's not commentary? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, this article mentions the Tea Party directly. You're under a topic ban. MilesMoney (talk) 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. Arzel (talk) 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. MilesMoney (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean kind of like your little snipe on my talk page? You should read up on WP:POT. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic, this edit is clearly against consensus and must be reverted. MilesMoney (talk) 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, @MilesMoney: is a relatively new editor whose style looks familiar. A checkuser against him and the topic-banned editors seems a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"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 Arbitration Enforcement. Perhaps you could explain why you tried to recruit Arzel to edit articles that you are explicitly topic banned from, in violation of WP:PROXYING. Are you thinking of that now too? - Mr X 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 WP:AE. 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. MilesMoney (talk) 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 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, "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." ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2013 (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. Capitalismojo (talk) 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 User:MrX enumerates below – even without the ref to the CRP webpage, the sentence is still properly cited. Mojoworker (talk) 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.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 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 Bloomberg.

@Arthur Rubin, your presence here would seem to a violation of your ARBCOM imposed topic ban, a fact that you were warned about here and about proxying here. Is it necessary to go to WP:AE to get you respect your topic ban? - Mr X 03:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And Arthur, don't be shocked – the CRP reports union funding of liberal dark money here. Also, I don't see any mention of a secondary source validity/notability distinction at WP:V – 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." Mojoworker (talk) 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 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 WP:COAT issues, this is another good example. Arzel (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The brothers perform their political activities through groups that they fund, therefore these groups are relevant to the article. MilesMoney (talk) 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. – S. Rich (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Since my comment was not about the Tea Party, you appear to be barking up the wrong tree. MilesMoney (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Woof, woof! – S. Rich (talk) 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. MilesMoney (talk) 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, WP:COAT 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.- Mr X 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. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"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.Source: Kansas City Star
"The Koch brothers poured $301 million into politically-active groups in 2012, according to a report from the Center for Responsive Politics." Source: The Hill
"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." Source: Talking Points Memo
"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."Source: The Capital Times
"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." Source: Salon

As I've pointed out to you before, there is no WP:DIRECTINVOLVEMENT 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. - Mr X 16:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC), 18:43, 6 December 2013 (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. Capitalismojo (talk) 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. MilesMoney (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support this addition. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 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 WP:DIRECTINVOLVEMENT" 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. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 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 we are not allowed to conduct original research. 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 WP:RSN.- Mr X 13:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo:The Koch link is clearly defined. There are even diagrams, which I'm happy to learn that we can use in this article because they are licensed under Creative Commons. Dark money is clearly defined, and it is not "slang". We have an article; books 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 WP:RSN.- Mr X 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, if you don't think the sources are reliable, we can go to WP:RSN. If you think WP:BLP should prevent this factual, researched, multiply-cited content from appearing in the article, you may open a case at WP:BLPN. 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). - Mr X 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 OR 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. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 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. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 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. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2013 (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"This is what I mean when I say red herring, AdventurousSquirrel and Capitalismojo.

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."

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,..."

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."

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 WP:ORN if folks continue to insist that any of this is original research. - Mr X 03:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

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 {{editprotected}} to request that an admin make the edit for. Admins: I have no objection to you changing the protection at your discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the Political activities of the Koch brothers

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. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's true, although they're so rich that they do much of their politicking through funding. MilesMoney (talk) 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. - Mr X 04:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories: