This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XB70Valyrie (talk | contribs) at 08:13, 14 June 2012 (→This Article is Pure Synthesis Prohibited by Misplaced Pages Rules: Adding talk section on "Controversy section" I know it'll be needed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:13, 14 June 2012 by XB70Valyrie (talk | contribs) (→This Article is Pure Synthesis Prohibited by Misplaced Pages Rules: Adding talk section on "Controversy section" I know it'll be needed.)(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. |
|
| 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: 3 months  |
| 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. |
|
| 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: 3 months |
| 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
EPA
- With the criticism has also come praise from the Obama administration for companies owned by the Koch Brothers. In Fall of 2010, Koch-owned Flint Hills Resources built an agreement between the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in a regulation dispute. "The EPA under President Obama has also praised Koch subsidiaries Georgia-Pacific and Invista for their cooperation with the agency. Georgia-Pacific even won an award from the EPA in 2009.".
- "Flint Hills leads the way toward EPA resolution". Corpus Christi Caller Times. 10/28/2010. Retrieved 4/15/2011.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Warren, Michael. "Koch Brothers Receive Praise From Obama Administration". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 4/15/2011.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help)
In what way are these political activities of the Koch family? Will Beback talk 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Id say that very little of the 'criticism' section qualifies as 'political activities of the Koch family'. Bonewah (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm talking about this material. Why did you restore it when someone deleted it? Will Beback talk 23:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- If there's no explanation for the relevance of this material to this article I'll remove it. Will Beback talk 08:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- If its your intention to remove this material, then I ask that you remove the whole 'criticism' section as none of it is really political activities of the Koch family. Bonewah (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- If there's no explanation for the relevance of this material to this article I'll remove it. Will Beback talk 08:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm talking about this material. Why did you restore it when someone deleted it? Will Beback talk 23:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the August 30, 2010, New Yorker, Jane Mayer writes that "As their fortunes grew, Charles and David Koch became the primary underwriters of hard-line libertarian politics in America." The article states the Koch brothers fund a multitude of groups opposed to government in general and Obama administration policies in particular.
- Charles, along with his brother, David, have been criticised by members of the Obama administration for their political spending.
- Kimberly O. Dennis, of the Searle Freedom Trust, a libertarian foundation, suggests that the Kochs are acting against their economic interest in promoting "getting government out of the business of running the economy. If they were truly interested in protecting their profits, they wouldn’t be spending so much to shrink government; they’d be looking for a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Their funding is devoted to promoting free-market capitalism, not crony capitalism."
Those all seem to concern political activities. Will Beback talk 20:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a single "Koch brothers"-related article without extensive coverage of the Mayer article? Nope - Misplaced Pages is not here to insert the exact same material into every possible article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Material from Mayers' article on the Koch family's political activities are relevant here. What is extraordinary is that the Mayer material is 53 words long while the rebuttal is 355 words. Usually the original assertion gets at least as much space as the rebuttal. Will Beback talk 21:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would ask Mr. Collect if there is a single source critical of the Koch's that he and Mr. Squirrel don't find biased, alastrovia. (VeritasEnResPublica (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC))
- Try reading my posts before making invalid assertions about me as an editor. Mayer's work is now in essentially every Koch-related article - which is contrary to common sense. We do not iterate the same material in every conceivable article. Even if it is biassed or not biassed - and I made no post suggesting that "bias" is here present - only that the material is already present at sufficient lenth in sufficient articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Anthropogenic Global Warming
I removed the Guardian article that stated that $200,000 had been given to the Heartland Institute for global warming activities. The NY Times in a more recent article states that it was $25,000 for healthcare policy. The Koch Foundation has also issued a press release that says they only gave $25,000 in 2011. If interested there is quite a bit about this at the Heartland article and talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Palm Beach Post article
My post stating that Mr. Koch was supporting Governor Walker's efforts in Wisconsin was deleted because it wasn't "factual". Here is the info from the ref (Palm Beach Post)
- "Asked about his efforts to sway public opinion, Koch acknowledges his group is hard at work in places such as Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker is facing off with public unions and grappling with a likely recall vote."We're helping him, as we should. We've gotten pretty good at this over the years," he says."We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more."By "we" he says he means Americans for Prosperity, which is spending about $700,000 on an "It's working" television ad buy in the state. It credits Walker's public pension and union overhaul with giving school districts the first surpluses they've seen in years. The unions and the left see things differently.
My line addition might not have been artful but it was factual and in line with the source.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Talking Points Memo is not RS. We must find another ref if this is in the article.Capitalismojo (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cite? — goethean ॐ 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
"By 'we' he means ..." is an opinion for sure. Find a better RS source for this sort of claim. Collect (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Who do you take Koch to be referring to? — goethean ॐ 00:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do not need to "take" ot for anything - our job is to use what the reliable sources actually state and not to give what we "know" is the "truth" in an article. Where a source gives an opinion, we state it as an opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- How can someone saying they support someone else be that person's "opinion"? Do you think that Koch may be mistaken about whom he supports? TFD (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to "know" the "truth." It is only up to us to use reliable sources properly - making claims explicitly backed in the source, and not making claims not in the source. Where a statement is one of opinion, it is citable as an opinion and not as a "fact." Is there something in this sentence which you have a problem understanding? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Criticism by Obama administration
The content in this section is a huge stretch and clear case of WP:COATRACK. It is the result of someone (or multiple people) pushing their political agenda on Misplaced Pages. It does not belong here and I am removing it from the article.
- The first item: "In an August 2010 background briefing, economist Austan Goolsbee, an administration official, accused Koch Industries of paying no corporate income tax." The article actually states that Goolsbee "falsely alleged" that they paid no corporate income tax. The article briefly mentions this as one of many examples of the left "demonizing" the Koch's. The fact that someone cherry-picked that quote to include in this Misplaced Pages entry in order to insinuate that the Koch's are tax-evaders, even though the article states it was false, seems like another attempt to demonize them.
- The second item: "In a September 23, 2010 op-ed in The Washington Post, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod accused Americans for Prosperity of being a "front group" that was "hijacking our elections" by "promot Republican candidates who support their right-wing agenda and corporate interests."" First off, it is an opinion piece. While it is okay in some cases to use an opinion piece, according to WP:RS, it must "explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion". This section does not do that since it is attributing the criticism to "the Obama administration" as a whole. Aside from that, the op-ed is not even criticizing the Koch family, it is criticizing Americans for Prosperity, and playing the transitive property game is nothing but WP:COATRACK.
These two items do not belong here and are not sufficient to claim that "Charles and David Koch, have both been criticized by members of the Obama administration." AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- How about this?
- In a September 23, 2010 op-ed in The Washington Post, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod wrote that the Koch brothers were "billionaire oilmen secretly underwriting what the public has been told is a grass-roots movement for change in Washington."
- — goethean ॐ 19:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, right before the quote you presented, the author cites and links to the Mayer article: “the New Yorker magazine recently revealed that this group has been quietly guiding the organizing efforts of the Tea Party -- in other words, billionaire oilmen secretly underwriting what the public has been told is a grass-roots movement for change in Washington.” So he is just summarizing in his own words what he took from the Mayer article. It's already been pointed out that the Mayer article shouldn't be considered reliable and Axelrod is basing his opinion on it in that quote. Plus, content about the Mayer article already takes up a huge chunk of the Political activities of the Koch family page. I don’t think we need to add more to that section. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, there isn't that much mention to their political activities at all, and your ad hoc attacks on any sources critical of the subject reeks of bias, cheers to that industry hacks. (VeritasEnResPublica (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC))
- This article is about (and titled) Political activities of the Koch family. How can you claim that "there isn't that much mention to their political activities at all"? I simply explained with logic, reason, and evidence that some information and quotes were misrepresented, causing a section of the article to be less than neutral. I've made no "attacks" on sources or other editors. It appears as if you have only created an account for the purpose of making personal attacks on editors who don't share the same opinions as you. If you'd like to work on improving articles, you need to cease making personal attacks and become familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, particularly WP:Civility. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This Article is Pure Synthesis Prohibited by Misplaced Pages Rules
Clear violation -- should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's handled right, I think this article could be used to actually educate people. Yeah. I agree. A lot of this article has been synthesized. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Controversy Expect a Fight
I've added a Controversy section. Expect a fight if you want to take it out. I expect there are any number of Tea-Party activists trolling this article. If you take my edit out, THAT COUNTS AS 1 REVERT. Please keep the 3RR in mind when you start editing. I'm already waging a battle on another wikipedia site in relation to lobbying. I'll do it here too.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Categories:- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Unassessed Conservatism articles
- Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles