Misplaced Pages

In the light of my continued and ignored insistence that the subjects concerned cite their arguments in Misplaced Pages rules and they simply refuse to, here's how it's done.

Pertaining to Arthur Rubin, AdventurousSquirrel and Arzel. I will not be Gamed. RE: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages." That's how you support an argument to limit endless bantering. But why would they want to limit endless bantering when indeed that's what they seek to create. Doing so is an act against the cornerstone doctrine of Good Faith Specifically, "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Misplaced Pages would be doomed from the beginning." THAT'S how you argue a point.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (banned editor)

I decline comment on the WP:ABF example above. I assume XB70's good faith, but question his WP:COMPETENCE and understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Misplaced Pages's goal is not to educate, but to report (or, to be precise, to summarize existing reliable reports.)

As for the specific content in question: If this is considered a reliable source, then the various actual facts reported (which, we had almost reached agreement on) should be distributed to the appropriate sections of this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe the source in question is reliable. It is, by my judgement, not a statement of fact or a factual report, but an opinion piece. If it is going to be used at all, then the POV language and content in the source must be completely eliminated. My suggestion is that if this material is to be included, then a more reliable, independent, factual source would better serve the encyclopaedia. Wikipeterproject (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he/she really meant the "expect a fight" bit. XB70Valyrie is now indefinitely blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Jane argued....

Although not neutral, it seems a more accurate description than Jane Mayer said.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Banned editor

"XB70" was banned by the Misplaced Pages community at , and logged at WP:LOBU. Collect (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Objection to removal of sourced material

Saezon writes, "I don't think that this opinion piece is enough of a source." The source is one of the top 25 newspapers in the United States, according to Misplaced Pages's list. It's not like it's a blog in who knows what source. Also I think Arzel could be more civil than to call the authors "The Koch boggeymen". They are former elected officials who are well known. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As always, any source which is based on opinions used in any WP:BLP must be accurately cited as "opinion" - when opinions get cited as fact, then they simply must be deleted per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You cannot use opinion pieces as a source for facts. Opinion pieces of course do not undergo the same fact-checking process as news stories. Also, before reporting opinions, you need to show that they are significant. So essentially opinion pieces are of very little use. TFD (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I agree with your edit in a different article, by the way. Well done. Regarding this article, I am happy to reword. But I'm not happy to delete. TFD, if you don't think the opinion of a former Vice President of the United States matters, I feel sorry for you. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Mondale has expressed his views on numerous topics and there are countless people of similar status who have as well. You need to demonstrate that this particular view has attracted attention. TFD (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to demonstrate anything about this particular view. His article appears in a reliable source and he himself is a reliable source. I'll be back tomorrow after 24 hours elapse (for the revert rule) to reword this. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the article, and one thing that struck me is this: "it is a product of an organization known as ALEC, which is the creation of the Koch brothers, who amassed their fortunes in oil and who live in Florida." Many references on Misplaced Pages and not on Misplaced Pages show that Charles Koch lives in Wichita and David Koch lives in New York City (at least as primary residences). This seems to be a red flag to the article's credibility as a whole. I think that more sources need to be found that point to the Kochs as founding ALEC before it is integrated into this article.Safehaven86 (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Former Vice-President J. Danforth Quayle III said that the Earth and Mars were "essentially" in the same orbit. Should we add that opinion to the various astonomy articles? TFD (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding material from this source. Opinion pieces need to be labeled as such which this one is. See this regarding the Koch's and funding at ALEC. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And in any case, the opinions must be labeled as "opinion" - it is the idea that simply saying "op-ed" then allows us to make a claim wording it as if it were "fact" which is the problem - the claims must be carefully and specifically cited as "opinion" as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The disputed text is "The brothers created the American Legislative Exchange Council which tries to influence legislatures across the nation and supports a voter ID constitutional amendment in Minnesota, according to Walter Mondale, former Democratic Vice President of the United States, and Arne Carlson, former Republican governor of Minnesota, in a joint opinion they wrote for the Minneapolis Star Tribune". Mondale and Carlson are stating facts, not opinions. Facts require reliable sources. An opinion would explain why these actions are good or bad. TFD (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My point with mentioning that the article erroneously states that the Kochs live in Florida was to show that perhaps this article was not thoroughly fact-checked. I think the nuance here is whether the Kochs created ALEC, or whether they have funded it. They've undeniably funded it–there are plenty of sources on that. But this article is the first one I've seen stating that the Kochs founded ALEC. I think that's a difference worth discussing, and if the claim that they created it isn't corroborated in other pieces, perhaps the WP article should stick with saying that they fund ALEC. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And that is not an excpetion -- opinion pieces are not reliable sources for "facts" and the "fact" here happens to be an "opinion." I did not find the "supports a voter ID ..." tobe a "fact" here. Perhaps you can find the source which makes that claim so we can do so in Misplaced Pages's voice? And the other source Somedifferentthing wants to use is titled "savage attack on democracy" but he thinks the gist of the opinion piece should not be used -- when it is clearly the main thrust of the opinion! Collect (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What about, "Walter Mondale, former Democratic Vice President of the United States, and Arne Carlson, former Republican governor of Minnesota claimed that the brothers created the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC tries to influence legislatures across the nation and supports a voter ID constitutional amendment in Minnesota." We can find a reliable source for the second claim. TFD (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it might be synthesis, even if there is a reliable source for the second "claim", but I could agree to that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's my problem with using this source. Suppose the Koch brothers have nothing to do with ALEC. If the claim made in the op-ed had attracted substantial notice then at some point we would learn that the claim was false and would state that fact in this article, if we mentioned ALEC at all. But the claim has received no attention except from us, so we are in the position of drawing attention to a claim that has been ignored. It goes against WP:WEIGHT, which requires us to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." But this viewpoint has no prominence, the op-ed is not even about the Koch brothers. TFD (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken....it is a problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD, the material you wrote about "But the claim has received no attention except from us, so we are in the position of drawing attention to a claim that has been ignored" doesn't make sense. If the Koch brothers have provided funding to ALEC for decades , why would it suddenly become newsworthy??? - Nevertheless, I'll try to find other sources regarding their involvement with ALEC. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If the Koch brothers have been funding ALEC for years, then there would be a reliable source for it, and we would not have to present it as an opinion. Reliable sources would include news stories, books and academic papers. TFD (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are five major news publications in Minneapolis? I'd have trouble finding 5 major news publications in Los Angeles. And that's an editorial (or possibly op-ed) piece, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering the MinnPost claims that the Koch brothers live in Florida, I would say it is safe to assume that the MinnPost does not know what the hell they are talking about. It was a pretty nice little cut and paste job from the primary clueless statement from Mondale. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Susan, I'll try to locate some other material regarding the Kochs and ALEC. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff I hope you succeed. You folks here continue to insult whomever and whatever publication disagrees with you. Misplaced Pages articles about the Koch brothers don't mean very much, even when you bury them a level down under "Political activities of...". Nobody else gets that kind of treatment. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please give is a break. Simply find an actual factual statement that says that they were involved with the founding of ALEC. Does it not bother you at all that Mondale and Carlson have no clue where David and Charles actually live? Arzel (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Susan; Where else could it be placed; it would go in a mixture of Charles and David Koch, Koch Industries, Koch Family Foundations, and a few other articles; but no fact should go in more than one article. This emphasizes the political activity, although I agree that nobody else gets that kind of treatment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearing up the nonsense regarding where the Koch brothers live. The Forbes material notes their "residence". Where they "live" (i.e. spend most of their time) could be Florida, we don't know, and it's irrelevant to the content of the article. They appear to have a home in Palm Beach, Florida. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I only brought up the residency issue to show that the Mondale article contained rather flimsy assertions of "fact." I'm sure it's possible that one or more Koch family members has a residence in Florida, but for the record, Charles lists Kansas as his official residence and David listed NYC as his official residence in court papers. The fact that the article nonchalantly asserts that the "Koch brothers live in Florida" casts doubt on other, more important assertions in the article, including the claim that the Kochs founded ALEC. Where the Kochs live is immaterial; but whether or not Misplaced Pages should include contentious claims referenced by factually inaccurate sources is not. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, whether the Kochs have anything to do with ALEC is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact - they are either involved or they are not. To even allow this source in as an "opinion" of Mondale is problematic because reality isn't subject to opinions and it would be an irresponsible BLP violation to attribute a fact to an opinion piece. Secondly, I have no doubt that the publication itself is reliable, but op-ed pieces are not vetted the same way that news articles are - there is a lot more leeway.

We should not be arguing about including this source to cite a connection to ALEC, rather we should be looking for Mondale's source or any other source that actually verifies the connection. When performing a google search I only find mentions from far left publications like The Nation on the first page when I would hope to find something in the Washpost or NY Times. If the absolute best we can come up with are op-eds then we should not include the information.

@SusanLesch specifically: you should probably give WP:EW a better read. Based on your comment above regarding waiting 24 hours to revert it seems that you have the impression that edit warring is a valid way of settling disputes. Let me correct you now by informing you that 3RR, while a bright line, is not an entitlement and editors are commonly blocked for edit warring even when they don't cross 3RR if an admin believes that said editor will continue revert warring. On top of that, edit warring simply doesn't work on WP as there are always editors willing to revert if they see the addition of material without consensus. You should either find better sourcing or to drop the subject. SÆdon 21:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, ALEC's history on their website makes no mention of any Koch involvement. In my opinion, the Mondale editorial in question is not an acceptable source because a) its and editorial and b) it isnt even really about the Kochs anyway, they are only mentioned in passing. It seems to me that if the Kochs really were involved in the creation of ALEC, then it should be easy to find a better source to back that claim up. If no such source exists, then the supposed connection between the brothers Koch and ALEC should not appear in Misplaced Pages for lack of an RS. Bonewah (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, sorry I misspelled your username initially. Thank you for the warning but I think it is misplaced. WP:BRD applies in this case: my effort was to reword a second try. That turned out to be unsuccessful. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bonewah. The people and source involved here are exceptional but nobody is infallible. Safehaven86 identified the problem: the Kochs funded (and are members) of ALEC. This is distinct from "founded". So time for me to remember "Think it possible you may be mistaken." -SusanLesch (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Also note that User:Binksternet has ably demonstrated that an op-ed is an acceptable source even for a BLP. Thank you for that. Arthur Rubin, one question. If we were talking about New York City, the fact that it is the largest city in the United States might appear in several different articles: (US cities by population, world cities by population, the article about the city, the state and the country). I disagree with your idea that a fact can only appear in one. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he has not demonstrated that an op-ed is an acceptable source for a BLP; an op-ed is a primary source, and primary sources are acceptable for a BLP only to improve accuracy-checking if a secondary source comments about the primary source (reprinting the primary source without commentary does not count), and the secondary source is also used. As for not appearing in more than one article, that was a mistake on my part. However, this is the primary article in which it might appear. If it were extremly notable, it might occur in the individual Koch's articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

See "Advocacy Funding--Left and Right" in The Big Sort. It is not clear who founded ALEC, but it was not the Koch brothers. From what I have read, ALEC receives funding from many sources. TFD (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken your ball away

Now make friends, discuss the issues here, and when the protection expires and the ball comes back in a week......play nicer - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• You beat me to it. What I see here is many very good editors that just can't agree. Hopefully a week free of editing will generate a consensus. And I assume that like all Full Protections, it isn't an endorsement of the current version. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council partly funded by Koch

In a previous thread, a challenge was placed against an opinion piece which connected American Legislative Exchange Council with funding from the Koch family. There are better sources which confirm the relation. Let's use them instead. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Buhle, Paul; Buhle, Mary Jo (2012). It Started in Wisconsin, page 17. Published by leftist/radical Verso Books. Paul Buhle is a respected radical political scientist, retired. His wife Mary Jo Buhle is a radical feminist historian and author.
• Feinman, Jay M. (2011) Un-Making Law: The Conservative Campaign to Roll Back the Common Law, pages 179 and 184. Jay M. Feinman is Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Law at Camden. Feinman writes: "ALEC has a Private Enterprise Board headed by Kurt L. Malmgren... and including... Koch Industries." He says "Fewer than a dozen foundations are the principal funders of this conservative movement." He connects the Koch family foundations with funding to ALEC.
• Nichols, John (2011). Why Wisconsin Matters, page 135. Nichols, a veteran journalist who worked as the Washington correspondent for The Nation, connects ALEC to its "billionaire benefactors that included Tea Party funders Charles and David Koch." Nichols has examined leaked financial documents gathered by the ALEC Exposed project.
• Noble, Charles (2004). The Collapse of Liberalism: Why America Needs a New Left, page 44. Charles Noble is chair of the department of political science at California State University, Long Beach. Noble says, "The current campaign against liberalism is funded by a small set of tightly controlled family foundations set up to funnel the fortunes of right-wing millionaires and some of America's largest corporations into politics." He names the Koch Family foundations as one of the set, and ALEC as one of the beneficiaries.

They are all reliable sources, on topic, and written by experts and published by academic publishers. TFD (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about we add ALEC to the list in the Political organizations subsection of the organization section? So it would be like "Charles and David Koch also have been involved in, and have provided funding to, a number of other think tanks and advocacy organizations: They provided the initial funding for the Cato Institute, they are key donors to the Federalist Society, and they also support the Mercatus Center, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Institute for Justice, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, the Institute for Energy Research, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Reason Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute., ALEC and the Fraser Institute." Bonewah (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable placement. Probably less reasonable in ALEC, unless we also list the other major sources of funds. Not all of those sources are reliable (I'm not absolutely sure that any are reliable, except for the opinion of the author), and they don't support more than Bonewah's proposed statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Good recommendation. And yes they are all reliable sources because they are from academic publishers, which means they have undergone fact-checking. TFD (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Not an academic publisher. Possibly usable for verified (within the book) statements of fact. Might be WP:UNDUE even if reliable, as the publisher is proud of their bias, so they might choose to ignore other organizations more connected.
2. Not known as an academic publisher. Unless you've got the pages wrong, the connection is that Koch Industries is (one of the) members of the Private Enterprise Board, and that Paul Fink, President of two of the Koch Family Foundations, describes his companies' philosophy on funding, without mentioning ALEC.
3. Some of the Perseus Books Group imprints have a good reputation, but there's nothing about Nation Books which suggests it's an "academic publisher" or has a good reputation for fact-checking. Doesn't mention the Kochs directly.
4. Many of their imprints are academic or have a good reputation; I don't know about this particular imprint, but, for the purpose of arguement, I'll concede the point. However, the page you quote connects the "Koch Family foundations" (among others) with ALEC (among others).

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The first three are well-respected publishing houses that include works by academics. That actually meets WP:RS. The publisher of the fourth book, Rowman & Littlefield, is an academic publisher and supports the claim. I suggest using it as the best source. It's clear anyway that the Koch brothers did not "create" ALEC. TFD (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you guys can agree on a source I will support this addition. I'd prefer that one of you make the edit otherwise who knows who will come by and revert me. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The first one, although obviously biased (the publisher states the imprint is intended to be biased), may be acceptable. All the other sources you gave are indirect (whether or not at all reliable), and would require more information to connect the Kochs to ALEC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

From source #1, "Another organization drawing on Koch financial support, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), founded..." - My view is to use source #1 applied to Bonewah's suggestion above. If it is later revealed that the Koch's have been one of ALEC's primary donors then the material can be amended. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems acceptable, although I would like to see evidence that the imprint is trying to print (biased) facts, rather than notable opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can name the Buhles as the origin of source #1. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are almost entirely critical of the Koch's and anything they think that the Koch's are responsible for. It would be nice to have some objective sources talking about the Koch's rather than these books which are pissed off about Wisconsin and blame the Koch's for what happened there. Arzel (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the nature of the Koch's political affairs, I can't think of anyone on either side who would write a non-partisan book with material concerning them. This is what we have to work with so far. With that said, I'm fine with using source #1 naked but wouldn't oppose attribution. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

When protection ends or before if you prefer, please add the following (per Bonewah) to the list in Political organizations:

Charles and David Koch also have been involved in, and have provided funding to, a number of other think tanks and advocacy organizations: They provided the initial funding for the Cato Institute, they are key donors to the Federalist Society, and they also support the Mercatus Center, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Institute for Justice, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, the Institute for Energy Research, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Reason Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute., ALEC and the Fraser Institute.

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This suggestion appropriately acknowledges the scholarly credentials of the Buhles, allowing Misplaced Pages to state facts as facts, rather than requiring the Buhles to be named as the holders of an opinion. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  You seem to have strange interpretations of both WP:NPOV (elsewhere in this talk page) and WP:BLP (here and elsewhere). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A book attacking the Koch's is not what I would consider a scholarly crediential. It is getting quite tiring to hear the left repeatedly make the Koch's out to be some sort of nefarious shadow organization behind everything that they think is currently bad in the world. Arzel (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Susan's inclusion of ALEC. See my last comment in the section above. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually, a clear WP:BLP violation unless "(according to the authors)" is added in plain text, and still problematic unless it can then be rewritten so as to deemphasize the questionable source. If it's accurate, there should be a credible source. It should also be noted that you've proposed a different set of authors than the reference in the previous section. Which is correct? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I used the authors given here. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, in that case, there's no way to give it attribution in that sentence, and it requires attribution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Every part of that book has an author. Each chapter lists its author. For instance, as the listed author of Chapter 2: "The Wisconsin Idea", Mary Jo Buhle is the author of the page 17 quote, "Another organization drawing on Koch financial support, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), founded in 1973, for more than forty years had been supplying conservative office holders with model legislation designed to protect and enhance corporate interests and were now enjoying success in GOP-led state governments." I cannot see any reason why you would have concluded "there's no way to give it attribution in that sentence". Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the attribution is possible. It's still required, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. You (those in favor of inclusion) need to make the chapter author clear in the reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words, the text should read "(according to

• Oppose "Scholarly works" with a clear inherent POV cease to be reasonable sources for such overarching claims as are here asserted. I wold note no one here appears to assert that the Buhle work does not have such an apparent POV. Collect (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  I think we need to point to a specific policy or guideline, or the "evil empire" will ignore our just demands. (To badly mix metaphors and similes (and split infinatives)). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for contentious claims. When we use a source, we do not just use "one sentence from the source" - we direct the reader to said entire source. Where such a source is excessively POV, we, in fact, direct the reader to something far from the "best source" inherently. In the case at hand, Buhle could be used for innocuous claims, but by virtue of being used as a source, becomes an issue per se. Thus best practice is to use the "least bad" source, lest we mislead readers. Buhle does not fill the bill. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I do not see this, as written, as being overly POV or deceptive in its motivations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbower47 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is hardly a scholarly book. John Nichols is many good things but neutral observer is not one of them, as he would be the first to tell you. This book is a partisan broadside designed to stir the soul of labor activists. Take anything they say about their opponents with a grain of salt. Hyperbole in the war to save the right of collective bargaining is the order of the day. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support There are reliable sources and it is not undue to include ALEC with the numerous groups funded by the Koch Brothers. It is not an extraordinary claim, since it is typical of organizations they support. The political opinions of the writers is irrelevant, because this is a matter of fact, not opinion. TFD (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  There may be reliable sources, but none have yet been presented. The given sources is closest to being reliable, but the publisher admits/proudly states that they are biased, so any material subject to interpretation must be credited to the authors. If there was only one author, that crediting could be done inline, but, with 4 unrelated authors.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS#Some types of sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.... Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." All sources are from respected publishing houses and one is from an academic publisher, Rowman & Littlefield. Now could you please provide a policy that supports your claim about sources. TFD (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say that no reliable sources have been presented for that material. Only this source makes the claim in question. As pointed out above, it's essentially a primary source, and should not be used in WP:BLP contexts without clear attribution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The reference needs to use the {{cite book}} template, with chaptertitle and chapterauthor in place, to clarify the appropriate credits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The author of the chapter Mari Jo Buhle won a MacArthur Fellowship. She is the editor of the book. The {{cite book}} template is already in place in my edit request. I have no problem adding chapter information. Most of you seem to be making endless, unreasonable requests. Anything else? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that should be editors=, rather than authors=, and "via Google books" should be in format=, rather than as part of publisher=. But those are minor. I don't think the information is important, considering that we cannot find a non-primary reliable source, but, if attributed in the text, it would not be a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The list of (chapter) authors is not relevant to the credibility of the source. What should be credited are the editors and the author of the chapter we are referencing; hence the citation should have editors= and chapterauthor=; author= (even if reported by Google books) is not relevant. Careful study of the detailed credits show it should read: editors=Mari Jo Buhle and Paul Buhle, and should not have an authors field. (By the way, why is Mari Jo Buhle not listed as an "author" in Google books? Sexism?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the list from Amazon.com. As it turns out you are correct to argue about who is the author:

Mari Jo Buhle (Editor), Paul Buhle (Editor), John Nichols (Introduction), Michael Moore (Afterword), Patrick Barrett (Contributor), Mary Bottari (Contributor), Roger Bybee (Contributor), Ruth Conniff (Contributor), Gary Dumm (Contributor), Simon Hardy (Contributor), Frank Emspak (Contributor), Ashok Kumar (Contributor), Tom Morello (Contributor), David Poklinkowski (Contributor), Matthew Rothschild (Contributor), Sharon Rudahl (Contributor), Charity A. Schmidt (Contributor)

So here is {{cite book}}: Buhle, Mari Jo (2012). "The Wisconsin Idea". In Buhle, Mari Jo; Buhle, Paul (eds.). It Started in Wisconsin (via Google Books). Verso Books. p. 17. ISBN 1844678881.

Thank you, especially if we can come to agreement today. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Tracing the citation templates, it looks as if {{cite encyclopedia}} is the correct one, but it's difficult to use: Perhaps:

Buhle, Mari Jo (2012). "The Wisconsin Idea" (via Google Books). In Buhle, Mari Jo; Buhle, Paul (eds.). It Started in Wisconsin. Verso Books. p. 17. ISBN 1844678881.

Interesting. Looks the same as the "cite book". OK, then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Buhle, Mari Jo (2012). "The Wisconsin Idea" (via Google Books). In Buhle, Mari Jo; Buhle, Paul (eds.). It Started in Wisconsin. Verso Books. p. 17. ISBN 1844678881.

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an in-depth article which links ALEC and Koch Industries - Link:

From the article:

The rest of its members are representatives of nearly 300 of the biggest U.S. corporations, including Johnson & Johnson, Verizon, AT&T, Wal-Mart, Koch Industries, UPS, Exxon and Coca-Cola, as well as conservative think tanks and advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association. Legislators and corporate officials gather at high-end resort towns several times a year to draft and update model bills. ALEC documents show lawmakers pay $50 a year to be members. Corporations pay at least $7,000 and up to $25,000 to join — more if they want to help draft model bills as part of one of nine policymaking task forces. At least 98 percent of ALEC’s $7 million budget comes from corporations, according to its latest IRS filing. As a nonprofit 501(c)(3), ALEC is exempt from paying taxes.

Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That source claims that Koch Industries is a member of ALEC. Isn't this discussion regarding whether they provided funding? Whether or not they are a member doesn't seem to be too notable since there are a large number ("nearly 300") of big companies listed that are, based on this source. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it documents that Koch Industries is a member of a committee. A little stronger than being a member of ALEC, but not really that much. It certainly doesn't indicate it is of any importance to either organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It states, "Corporations pay at least $7,000 and up to $25,000 to join". So yes, Koch Industries provided funding to ALEC, along with a host of other corporations. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Which suggests: ALEC has corporate memberships, and Koch Industries was likely one of its mambers is about as far as you can run with that bit if trivia. I would like to point out that most corporations of any reasonable size belong to 10 or more organizations - wwith larger ones belonging to hundreds of organizations. DuPont, frinstance, probably belongs to several thousand organizations (that is, they pay fees to several thousand organizations). Collect (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the political activities of the Koch family. That Koch Industries provided funding to ALEC is our concern and has been demonstrated. In other words, what "other corporations" have done is irrelevant to this discussion. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It has to be relevant to "political activities of the Koch family" to be included here; it not only has to be sourced, but relevant. That seems tangential. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Koch Industries provided funding to ALEC is clearly relevant to an article about the "political activities of the Koch family". The Koch family are the majority owners of this private corporation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Is "$7,000 to $25,000" a significant amount, either to Koch Industries, or to ALEC? If there is no evidence of that, then using this for "funding" is WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Funding is funding, whether it be $1,000 or $10,000, and has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE weight. Hundreds of corporations have provided funding to ALEC, Koch Industries is merely one of them. Once the protection expires on the article I will add them to the list per user:Bonewah's original post, and later user:SusanLesch's edit request, with the only difference being the sourcing I've provided. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

David Koch "funds" Doctors Without Borders (which is a "political group"). If you feel all memberships and donations belong, I have a nice long list we can add <g>. Meanwhile, you do not have WP:CONSENSUS on your side here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, Doctors Without Borders is a humanitarian-aid NGO, not a "political group". I need to get going now. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually - it definitely meets the criteria for being a "political group" - check out its press releases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Our article reports that Doctors Without Borders "frequently insists on political responsibility in conflict zones such as Chechnya and Kosovo." Seems adequate to make it a "political group". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning the funding is not undue weight; take as an example the many reliable sources that make the connection. We would be burying our heads in the sand to ignore a connection so widely noted. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources which mention a connection without even implying funding. You have found only which which explicitly states "funded", and one which explicitly implies "funded". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's now a moot point. Here are a couple of new sources which support it's addition to the section in question. , . I've added the material to the section which can be seen here. (See ALEC in the third paragraph). I've included quotes within the references. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not moot. Claims with WP:BLP implications do not get exempted here. And claims about ALEC do not belong here at all, but in that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what this article is about nor do you have a clear understanding of WP:BLP implications. This edit-warring is unacceptable. Placed warning on user's talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What you've said you were going to do would clearly violate WP:BLP. Let me check what you added to the article to see whether you did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article supports inclusion, but the quote is what would be termed "prejudicial" at law, and WP:COATRACK here (but not necessarily WP:BLP — if I need to revert another few times, I'll check); and the Irish Times article seems to be just quoting Bloomberg. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your addition of "or are members of" seems to require addition of any other political organization of which they are members, and of which we can find a reliable source to that effect, such as possibly Doctors without Borders. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the revision history, user:Collect originally added "or are members of". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

He didn't remove the Bloomberg article, only the quote. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. You're right. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is Jane Mayer is why does her opinion warrant an entire section here?

This article lends undue weight - a LOT of undue weight - to the opinions of a single person. I can see mentioning Mayer's New Yorker piece and maybe even devoting a paragraph to it; I can't see the Mayer piece having a whole section comprising about 20% of this article. Belchfire (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Mayer's New Yorker piece provides a large part of all the Koch articles; if all that information belongs here (which I doubt), so does the criticism of that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to a general one. Also, there appears to be undue weight regarding the responses, etc. to the article. What do you guys think of removing one of the two block quotes so that you end up with one quote and the Defended by Searle Freedom Trust section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be edited down to no more than a single paragraph. Think about it - this article covers 50 years of history and yet almost a fifth of it concerns a single magazine article. That's undue weight, big time. Belchfire (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Mayer article itself is 10 pages long, so the blockquote representing it is absolutely appropriate. The problem is with what I mentioned previously, the responses, etc. to the article. They currently occupy the majority of the section. Feel free to add more material (if warranted) and depth to the history regarding the family's political activities. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The responses are probably more notable than the article itself, and should be given more placement. I have no objection to trimming both, but the quotes should probably be trimmed before the responses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the title back to "Criticism from Jane Mayer" since she is the only person cited for criticism in the section. If the section describing Mayer's criticism is staying, then the responses need to stay to point out the problems that exist with her article and criticism of the Kochs. I do agree that undue weight is given related to Mayer's views, and would support removing the section entirely, but I'm sure others would disagree which is why the responses to her views are necessary to balance it out. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think having 2 block quotes responding to Mayer is undue weight. Her article is a 10 page piece yet the majority of the section is devoted to responses, etc. Changing the section name is fine for now but if more criticism is added to this article it will need to be changed to a general "Criticism" section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling argument in favor of keeping 6 paragraphs of material about the Mayer article. The block quotes are mostly superfluous. That entire section needs to be pared down to just the gist of the piece and a couple of quotes, plus a couple of sentences about the responses. Belchfire (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm clearly in favor of keeping the Mayer quote (it's a good representation of that lengthy piece and the only critical one of its type in this entire article) - but I'm fine with trimming the Mayer section overall. In general I think the criticism section should be expanded, given the attention the Koch's have been receiving. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Mightyou indicate what in ] says that where people are criticised that the criticism section should be expanded "given the attention" the person is receiving? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article should represent the reliable sources that are currently available. If more criticism is coming from more sources, then the article should represent that weight as accurately as possible. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Per your earlier comment, Somedifferentstuff, if the Criticism section were expanded, then a shortened blurb about the Mayer article belongs within it, not above it. Thoughts anyone? Belchfire (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We can cross that bridge if we come to it. Right now I don't see anyone expanding the criticism section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be expanded by moving the Mayer-related material there. Belchfire (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Counterpunch" editorial

Does not meet WP:RS, does not meet WP:BLP for a contentious claim about a living person, and its removal is absolutely required by policy. Note that the failure of the citation was noted for 16 months in this article - and it was well past time for its removal. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Koch Empire and Americans for Prosperity" by PAM MARTENS is an article in a newsletter, not an editorial. Could you explain what is "contentious" about this claim: "In 1981 was placed in charge of the estate of Claude Lambe and thereby also inherited control of the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation". TFD (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Straight face that "inherited control" is a very POV wording of "was named executor"? Or did anyone think estates do not get executors? Collect (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

How should one phrase it then? I suppose one could argue that executors exercise control on behalf of the deceased and therefore have not "inherited" it. TFD (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

CounterPunch is an extremely unreliable source. Google "Counterpunch and blood-libel" or "Counterpunch and anti-semitism" that will give a taste of this vile entity. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We cannot rely on the collective wisdom of bloggers on the web to determine what should be in the article. CounterPunch meets rs for news organizations. TFD (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. CounterPunch is no more reliable than a political blog. Belchfire (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively, wrong. If a publication has a reputation for lies and propaganda, we cannot expect reliable sources to report that; we are allowed to consider all factors as to whether a publication is reliable. In this case, we do not have any indication that they are reliable (in terms of taking an editorial interest in their articles), whether or not their editing is reprehensible. Although invoking Godwin's law is rarely appropriate, it seems that CounterPunch, if it has an editorial policy, is fairly close to Hitler. If it doesn't have an editorial policy, it's not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words, instead of backing up your views, you choose to resort to innuendo and expect other editors to respect your judgment. TFD (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, at WP:RSN, I've "resorted" to using their own words. I see nothing which indicates that fact-checking is part of their editorial policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The blogs Capitalismojo has found are sufficient to require some evidence that CounterPunch is a reliable source. None has yet been forthcoming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See Richard Keeble's Ethics for Journalists, Routledge, 2009, p. 253, "...Peace News... is an outstanding publication and worth highlighting. Its international coverage is particularly impressive.... So too websites such as ... www.counterpunch.org (investigative journalism site run by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair)...." BTW could you name a specific blog that is informing your opinion, most blogs are not rs. 22:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a higher standard for reliable sources than Misplaced Pages, for the most part; the source has to be written as if it an attempt at reporting, rather than appearing to be an essay, diatribe, or editorial. If that isn't met, I require some evidence the source does fact-checking. If it is met, I would usually take their word for it that they do fact-checking. Even that (their word) isn't readily apparent here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yours is a commendable practice, I'm sure. However, Misplaced Pages accepts biased opinion pieces that qualify as reliable sources. We acknowledge that an op-ed may contain very good research, fact-checking and expert analysis. We examine such texts on a case-by-case basis. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, if you "have a higher standard for reliable sources than Misplaced Pages", then you should take your argument to the policy talk pages. TFD (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

CounterPunch is as honest and reliable as the New American magazine and for many of the same reasons. That is to say: it isn't reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your opinion. TFD (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) Other "fact" claims in that "article" include:

The work of most of the groups is to push for privatization of public services and public schools.

Americans for Prosperity was able to blanket the internet with a McCarthyesque video

the Koch brothers have never allowed their company’s stock to trade in those “free markets.” (um -- that is why it is a "private company" folks!)

What could possibly explain all this right wing and deregulatory attention on a state of 1.3 million people? For one, New Hampshire hosts the first Presidential primary. For another, Koch Industries, Inc. purchased Georgia-Pacific Corp. for $21 billion in 2005, paying a 39 percent premium over its share price on the New York Stock Exchange at the time. In case no one here ever watches finance shows, it is difficult to buy a company paying less than the current share value!

The tycoons of yesteryear handed down an axe to grind against government interference in big business and that has been carefully nurtured by a labyrinth of modern tycoons and front groups. sure sounds like an editorial opinion from here -- anyone care to claim it is a "fact"?

You can even turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse by rehabilitating the deregulatory/free markets brand that fleeced the public, took their homes, left the financial system of the country in ruins and then used taxpayer money to attempt to bail itself out.

In short - such a blatant editorial opinion piece that even a few short quotes expose it for what it is. And check out some of Pam Martens other "articles" including claims like:

If you’re a Wall Street behemoth, there are endless opportunities to privatize profits and socialize losses beyond collecting trillions of dollars in bailouts from taxpayers. One of the ingenious methods that has remained below the public’s radar was started by the Rudy Giuliani administration in New York City in 1998. It’s called the Paid Detail Unit and it allows the New York Stock Exchange and Wall Street corporations, including those repeatedly charged with crimes, to order up a flank of New York’s finest with the ease of dialing the deli for a pastrami on rye.

Or:

Now corruption probes are snowballing at NOPD, revealing cash payments to police in the Paid Detail and members of the department setting up limited liability corporations to run upwards of $250,000 in Paid Detail work billed to the city.

And in another article:

It was a triumph in public relations for a police department about to go on an assault spree – pepper spraying and punching peaceful protestors; kicking, ramming and arresting journalists attempting to cover the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.

On air, the reporter, Scott Pelley, said the surveillance center was “housed in a secret location,” as one would expect of a real counter terrorism program — as opposed to a program to simply quash dissent. Mr. Pelley also said the program was run by the NYPD. As it turns out, neither of those assertions were accurate.

You won’t find photographs showing these firms in the surveillance center in any U.S. corporate news outlet, but a foreign news service has them openly displayed – a news organization servicing countries of the former Soviet Union. IOW, Eastnews.pl - which is not exactly RS AFAICT.

Not only is it unprecedented for corporations under serial and ongoing corruption probes to be allowed to spy on law abiding citizens under the imprimatur of the largest police force in the country, but the legality of the operation by the NYPD itself is highly questionable

Anyone in any sense care to assert that such articles are a basis for a claim of "fact" on Misplaced Pages? Really? Collect (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to us to conduct our own analysis of news sources - we go by what reliable sources say. There are blogs where one may complain about the "liberal" media and how unfair it is to "conservatives". Signed reports in news sources always contain the opinions of authors. Take for example the 'New York Times. The first article on today's website is "United States Adds Forces in Persian Gulf, a Signal to Iran" By THOM SHANKER, ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER. At the same time must signal support for Israel, but not so much support that the Israelis see the buildup as an opportunity to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities.... A key motivation for “Olympic Games,” the covert effort to undermine Iran’s enrichment capability with cyberattacks, has been to demonstrate to the Israelis that there are more effective ways to slow the program than to strike from the air. But this delicate signaling to both Iran and Israel is a complex dance." More overtly newspapers, such as the Telegraph and the Washington Times express even more opinion in signed articles. Typically academic books and papers are even more expressive of opinions, but that does not make them unreliable. Most of the experts on modern right-wing movementss, Chip Berlet, Sara Diamond, Robert Altemeyer and others say that they are warning us about the supposed danger they present. You are confusing neutrality with factual accuracy. TFD (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Contentious claims which are opinions are bad material for BLPs at best. In the case at hand, the claims were shown to be wrongly stated, which means using that source for the misstated fact is contreary to common sense. And in all cases, I believe that material from opinion pieces should be properly ascribed as opinion, and not as "fact." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Again you seem to be confused about the difference between facts and opinions. A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. An opinion is an interpretation of the facts. A good example is a law court, where judges determine facts and write opinions. We do not reject the findings of fact because the judge has written an opinion. Facts come under WP:RS, while opinion comes under WP:NPOV. It may be confusing because some partisans routinely make up facts in order to support their opinions. Such sources of course are not reliable. Respectable investigative journalists and academics assemble real facts in order to support their opinions. Such sources are reliable. TFD (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think that a highly partisan outlet like Counterpunch does not fall into the scenario you just outlined? Highly partisan sources are always suspect because they never present an oposing view, and Counterpunch is clearly one of those. Arzel (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

See Richard Keeble's Ethics for Journalists, Routledge, 2009, p. 253, "...Peace News... is an outstanding publication and worth highlighting. Its international coverage is particularly impressive.... So too websites such as ... www.counterpunch.org (investigative journalism site run by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair)...." While one may speculate, one needs to show that the what reliable sources say about them is false. That Einstein was of the opinion that E=mc2 does not mean that we can assume the data he used to verify it was faked. TFD (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't seriously be imposing that a mathematical theory is an opinion, can you? Furthermore, simply having a book published does not by virture imply factual information. I have published book chapters, and I can tell you it is far easier to get a chapter published in a book than it is to get that same information published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, opposing views are not required to form a factual reliable source. We assess partisan sources on a case-by-case basis; they are not all suspect. Fact-checking and accuracy are not unique to neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statement is contridictory. If we assess partisan sources on a case-by-case basis than they are all suspect, if they were not then there would be no need to assess some of them at all. Apparently, the logic here is that Counterpunch.org need not be assessed. Arzel (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not contradictory. Some partisan sources, such as the New York Times, Fox News and CounterPunch are reliable, others, such as the Cato Institute, are not. You need to provide sources for your beliefs. You read blogs and cite them as sources, but you need real sources. Note what Richard Keeble's Ethics for Journalists, Routledge, 2009, p. 253, says, "...Peace News... is an outstanding publication and worth highlighting. Its international coverage is particularly impressive.... So too websites such as ... www.counterpunch.org (investigative journalism site run by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair)...." Now find a source that says they are wrong. TFD (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FNC and the NYT are not comparable to CP. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

ou need to supply a source that supports your viewpoint, rather than repeat your personal opinion. A book on journalism ethics published in the academic press praises the journalism of CP. That's good enough for me, why is it not good enough for you? TFD (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeble praised CP's journalism. That should end this discussion. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My source is CP. Forgive me if I don't take too much stock in a book of opinion within the notably liberal academic establishment. Knowing what it takes to get a book or chapter published for opinion that can be then used in an academic class my view of academic integrity has taken quite the severe hit over the past few years. Unless you are talking about hard peer reivewed science such information is almost as worthless as the paper it is printed on. Keeble is a nobody (at least withint WP) so that is not much of an endorsement of CP. Arzel (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't get to the text of the book via the link provided. The text as shown seems to talk about counterpunch in the context of international coverage. I can't tell precisely what or why the professor is praising CP. If it is for CP's international coverage I'd say this fellow is very wrong. But given that all we have is some choppy text, I can't be sure what is being praised about CP. One unkown UK academic source does not get CP off the hook and make it instantly a RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A textbook on the ethics of journalism that praises the journalism of CounterPunch is a reliable source for CP being a reliable source. If the source is wrong, then it is incumbent on you to provide an alternative source. So far you have failed to do so and I can only conclude that there are no sources and you are only expressing your personal opinion. What is the "hook"? TFD (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, off the top of my head I'd say there are quite a few good sources. The New Republic magazine, Commentary magazine, Alan Dershowitz, the American Jewish Committee, a number of think tanks have all blasted Counterpunch. I will go get the links if you would like. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, could you please provide a link to an article. TFD (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, gone for a bit. I will tomorrow. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Mention 2012 doc. film?

Mention Robert Greenwald's 2012 documentary Koch Brothers Exposed? Rolling Stone The Nation 108.73.113.91 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We could possibly mention it, but not any of its contents, per WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please reconcile this with the above. 99.109.125.124 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I said, possibly. It still needs justification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Extra care needs to be taken to keep this article from turning into hate-speech. It's riding the line as it is. Belchfire (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi 108.73.113.91 and 99.112.215.188. Please add the film and producer to this article. I see no reason to describe its contents; go lightly per Arthur Rubin. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? This is little more than an attackumentory. The sources above are practically dripping with venom towards the Koch brothers, and I was unable to find any kind of neutral reporting to show that this film has broad based notability. Arzel (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The film is already covered in the article for its producer, Robert Greenwald. That seems like the appropriate place for it. Belchfire (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: The NYT specifically states that it is an "attack" film, and the blog post is abundantly clear on that fact. The liberal guerrilla video group Brave New Foundation on Wednesday began what it says will be a prolonged political attack against the industrialist Koch family, which has become synonymous with the anti-Obama conservative movement. is reasonably clear, and thus we can not in good faith make it into a neutral claim of a "documnetary" when the NYT does not so categorize the piece. Collect (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the film has received media attention, we need to note that in the article. We can provide external links in the article about Greenwald. The documentary itself may warrant an article also. I see the problem with linking to the documentary in this article. When we provide external links we should include a range of views, and there is only one documentary so far. TFD (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Films" have a Misplaced Pages notability standards which generally YouTube fails to meet for release. The "documentary" thus would quickly fail AfD. Meanwhile, we should use what the sources state about such a "film" if we mention it at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability is an issue when deciding whether or not to create an article. It seems however that the doc meets Misplaced Pages:Notability (films). Mentioning the film is not endorsing it. For balance we can add a pro-Koch source complaining about the liberal mainstream anti-American East Coast New York socialist media doc made by someone with the name Greenwald. TFD (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the NYT source is not "pro-Koch" and makes quite clear that the "film" is designed as an "attack." And I would note that YouTube "films" are uniformly found not to meet notability in the past at AfD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean the NYT when I said "pro-Koch source". Incidentally your comments contain a number of errors. The NYT does not "specifically state that it is an "attack" film". Jim Rutenberg writes in the NYT that Brave New Films has begun "what it says will be a prolonged political attack against the industrialist Koch family". He also writes, "The campaign marks yet another step toward conspicuousness for a family whose political activity was largely in the shadows until last year...." Non-notable films do not make people conspicuous. Incidentally I watched Stalag 17 on youtube the other day. Are you going to set up an AfD? TFD (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Cato institute

The subsection for the Cato Institute is pure coat rack. The sentence above it saying they are on the board of directors is sufficient for info on the Cato Institute in relation to the Koch family. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:COAT

Editors, please do not use this article for a political coatrack against Mitt Romney. The election is 4 months away and already every little stupid thing in the news is being inserted into articles. I would remind you all to know that WP is NOT a newspaper, so please stop treating it like it is one. Arzel (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Case in point. Here is clearly a section derived to point out that a few far left protesters don't like Romney.

Mitt Romney FundraiserIn July 2012, David H. Koch hosted a fundraising dinner for 2012 Republican Party Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, which was the subject of protests. David had donated $2,300 to Romney during the 2008 presidential race.

Are we going to have a similar section every single time Romney has a fundraiser? The use of WP to push political views is really annoying. Arzel (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you will want to read the coatrack guideline to which you linked prominently. It does not prohibit political activities of the Koch family from being included—that is in fact what the topic is about. It is not the fault of editors here that the Koch family has been linked to Romney in multiple articles:The Nation, Forbes, [Mother Jones, CBS News, Vanity Fair, Huffington Post. It is not the responsibility of article editors to prevent Romney from being described as having a "Koch Problem". He's a big boy; he can take his licks.

Now, if an editor were to add something unrelated to the Kochs and politics, that might be a coatrack problem. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How is people protesting Romney related to the Koch family? Arzel (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, when are the hypocrites at MoveOn.org going to protest Obama for his $50,000 a plate dinners from the Hollywood elite? Arzel (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No we are not going to mention in this article every time Romney has a fund-raiser, but should mention that the Koch bros have held fund-raisers for him. I imagine that in the articles about the political activities of individual Hollywood elitists we should mention if they hold fund-raisers too. TFD (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiring at Universities

Political Economy is just the original name for the study of economics. The funding of chairs studying economics and free trade does not fall under the rubric "political activities" of the Koch family. ( or anyone else for that matter). I will remove the subsection. Perhaps it belongs at the individual's bio page. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Capitalismojo. I quote the lead of Misplaced Pages's article below and will restore the section now.

Today, political economy, where it is not used as a synonym for economics, may refer to very different things, including Marxian analysis, applied public-choice approaches emanating from the Chicago school and the Virginia school, or simply the advice given by economists to the government or public on general economic policy or on specific proposals. A rapidly-growing mainstream literature from the 1970s has expanded beyond the model of economic policy in which planners maximize utility of a representative individual toward examining how political forces affect the choice of policies, especially as to distributional conflicts and political institutions.

-SusanLesch (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That is clearly not a political activity similar to anything else in this article. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's real stretch to try to say that donating money to universities constitutes "political activities" just because the donations were related to political coursework. Why don't you start an article called "Philanthropic activities of the Koch Family"? This material would fit much better there. Reverting pending discussion and consensus. Belchfire (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Their donations to MIT etc. are just as "political" fer gawrsh sakes. Collect (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Collect. Apparently Charles gives to 190 universities in the US. Belchfire you must be kidding. If Misplaced Pages truly needs another article on these people I need a vacation. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the vacation anyway, I'm sure being on jihad is very tiring. Yes, I was kidding to point out the absurdity of including that material here. Belchfire (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is abundantly clear that donations to universities are not widely seen as political activities suitable for inclusion in this article. Perhaps the article could be renamed "Civic activities of the Koch Family" then it would fit well. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

While donating money to universities is not a political activity per se, it becomes one when there is insistence on the ideological credentials of the academics. TFD (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include funding college programs promoting free enterprise?

As reported by the Tampa Bay Times, the Koch brothers have provided funding for a new program at Florida's State University promoting "political economy and free enterprise." The brothers' foundation screens academics hired. They also fund the Mercatus Center, whose faculty study "how institutions affect the freedom to prosper," at George Mason University. TFD (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)