Talk:Koch network/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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 [1] 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? - MrX 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.[2] There is a page at the site called "Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2014 Cycle"[3] 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[4] 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? - MrX 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 Wikipedia, 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.- MrX 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. - MrX 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.- MrX 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.- MrX 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). - MrX 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."[5] - 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. - MrX 03:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly take another swing at trying to explain my reasoning, but I think I may not be doing a very good job at that and it may be more productive at this point to first take a step back and analyze the addition more thoroughly. It reads "At least one fourth of the "dark money" contributions in the 2012 election campaign were made by groups associated with the Koch brothers." I see several prominent problems with this addition.

1. Firstly, while I think that "associated" is reasonably synonymous with "linked" (the word used in the sources provided), it perhaps indicates a somewhat firmer connection... But more importantly, both words are so undescriptive as to mean virtually nothing. It could mean that they have an intimate relationship, or several degrees of separation between them. You and I are actually cousins (of some degree) too, but I don't recall receiving an invite from you for Thanksgiving.
2. I have a math problem for anyone who cares to answer - quick: how many dollars is "At least one fourth" of an undefined amount of dollars? Answer: I don't know, I divided by zero and my brain melted. With no context to this proportion and no indication of how much "dark money" was involved or what proportion of the total spending in the election it made up, it is of limited informational value.
3. the neologism "dark money" is almost certainly not a term that most readers will have a good understanding of, and pretty clearly makes a value judgement and is not NPOV. I don't think that needs to be explained further.

Without assigning blame or theorizing about intentions, I think that taken together, these points create a situation in which to the average reader, the line effectively reads "A lot of bad money in the election came from the Koch brothers", while obfuscating several important points, like how much came from them, through whom, and their intent for the donations to the initial organizations to which they donated, and how much control they had over where it went, what role it had in the campaign, and what the significance of its "darkness" is. This line does little to inform readers, and a lot to play into the factless sensationalism game the media likes play. It'd be OR for anything but a statement of opinion, because there is no actual evidence - only commentary and speculation, even if in RSs. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your entire argument is original research, so it immediately loses out to a reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no OR in the AdSquirrel's discussion that I can see. What specifically do you suggest is OR? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

AS went so far as to analyze the literary connotations of "dark" as part of their argument against using source's choice of terminology. If that's not OR, nothing is. MilesMoney (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@AdventurousSquirrel: Actually, I think those are mostly fair points that can be addressed and perhaps lead us to a compromise:

1. I propose we use "linked", as most of our sources do. If you have a better idea, please propose it.
2. $86mm/$274mm = 31.4% > ¼
3. I don't entirely agree, but I'm open to considering a more formal phrase such as "hidden political contributions" or "undisclosed political funding" as long as we include "dark money" in parentheses to remain faithful to our sources (see #1).

Would you please propose some alternative wording that addresses your concerns, taking into account my replies? That way, we will have something concrete to work from. - MrX 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Well, my major concern is that "linked" or "connected" or "associated with" doesn't convey any useful information. I don't believe any of the RSs I've seen do anything to address that, either. If we don't say how they're linked, then we're just perpetuating bad information and doing the opposite of what a good encyclopedia is supposed to do.
2. I was thinking more along the lines of $86M/$2065M, unless someone can demonstrate why it's significant that it's "dark money" in the grand scheme of the entirety of the 2012 election spending. Otherwise it just seems like arbitrary statistics. Like when baseball announcers randomly recite offhand the last time some mundane but rare occurrence happened. But more importantly, do we know which proportion of that $86M actually originated with the Koch brothers, the subject of this article? Why do they get to take credit for every contribution that's potentially only tangentially related to them? And that's assuming that the unexplained claims of these reliable sources are correct.
3. Those proposals would be more agreeable, in my opinion.

AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1. "I don't believe any of the RSs I've seen do anything to address that" Your argument then is with the journalists, which puts it in WP:OR territory. Unless you have a policy-based argument, I suggest we use "linked."
2. The CRP article is fairly clear, but it helps to look at the first diagram.

Here is a wording proposal: "More than a quarter of the undisclosed political funding ("dark money") in the 2012 election campaign was made by groups linked to the Koch brothers. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of $274 million in anonymous 2012 contributions, $86 million is "attributed to donor groups in the Koch network"." If you don't like it, please propose something else so we get out from under this crushing wall of text. - MrX 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Insert @MrX:, Sorry - to be clear - which diagram do you mean? This one? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. - MrX 13:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

How about: "According to the advocacy group Center for Responsive Politics, $274 million was spent in anonymous contributions for federal electioneering in 2012, $86 million of which they attributed to "donor groups in the Koch network". " I don't see any added value in the term "dark money". Lets stick with the cleanest, clearest ref'd statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't do that because your paraphrase of "dark money" is inaccurate and contradicts our sources. That's why we should just use the term, just like our source did. MilesMoney (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

InsertI did not paraphrase "dark money", I used the description directly from the CRP/Opensecrets article we are discussing. It thus does not contradict the source. We have already discussed the problems of the term "dark money", using the source but avoiding the redolent term is a sound way forward. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the material on their blog page? With that in mind, it needs to include "according to Robert Maguire, writing on the CRP OpenSecretsblog, ...." Rationale: WP:BLOGS and WP:NEWSBLOG must be applied. (But then, does using the CRP link comport with "newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations" ?) – S. Rich (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Maguire is on their staff, so no. MilesMoney (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And the Kansas City Star article is not a blog. Mojoworker (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] So we cite the Star, and avoid the blog comments by Maguire. (But does he cite the Star? I don't see him doing so.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we cite both reliable sources. MilesMoney (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. We are citing both the primary and a secondary source (with or without the proposed in–text attribtuion). Mojoworker (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: I think we are getting closer, although MilesMoney raises a valid point. I think it could be original research to redefine a term that our sources use. I'm flexible though, if we can come to an editorial consensus. I do object to referring to CRP as an advocacy group. They are more properly referred to as "a non-profit, nonpartisan research group". 'Advocacy' has negative connotations which runs afoul of WP:NPOV. - MrX 21:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As it provides additional clarification, I have no objection to the addition of: 'According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of $274 million in anonymous 2012 contributions, $86 million is "attributed to donor groups in the Koch network"'. Mojoworker (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems a workable phrasing. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. It sound like we have a rough consensus then, unless there are other objections. - MrX 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The phrase should be "at least $86 million". There's still a lot of gray in dark money. Hcobb (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have boldly made the edit based on an assumption of consensus, including Hcobb's suggestion. Of course we can still tweak the wording if needed. I would still like to see dark money in parentheses, but it's not a deal breaker.- MrX 20:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It still needs a qualifier, e.g., "according to Robert Maguire, writing on the CRP OpenSecretsblog, ...." If consensus won't preclude the material based on BLOG, the requirement of NEWSBLOG should be followed. – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons stated by MilesMoney. I don't think WP:NEWSBLOG would apply since the article was not an opinion piece. Do we have any reason to believe that CRP would disavow Maguires research? - MrX 20:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Better Source Needed

Greenpeace is an advocacy group, not a news organization or a scholarly research organization. We can't trust Greenpeace for controversial claims when BLP policy is in play. Roccodrift (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The Greenpeace ref was corroborative, and note that they have been cited by third parties. The Langrock ref has denier in the title ("Global Warming's Denier Elite"), which seems a pretty convincing indictment of the Koch's political lobbying efforts to oppose climate change legislation. - MrX 19:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Rocco's complaints are baseless and kind of strange. MilesMoney (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Langrock mentions no less than 9 different parties. It talks about the Koch's lobbying efforts but doesn't assign any particular scientific view to them. Inferences made in the title are unconvincing when the piece talks about 8 other people or groups of people. Langrock might be corroborative next to a more solid source (more solid than Greenpeace, in other words), but doesn't stand on its own.

Greenpeace fails RS here for obvious reasons. They simply aren't neutral, nor is there any editorial accountability. If this contention is valid, surely there is a source with a better reputation. No? Roccodrift (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will see what I can find. - MrX 20:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Awkward?

@Capitalismojo felt it necessary to revert my rewording/expansion of the lede, which was characterized as "awkward". I would like to better understand this objection, given that my entire edit was reverted. - MrX 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the edit had both pros and cons. In one sense, it was an improvement in that it more closely followed Wikipedia conventions for opening paragraphs. But... it was indeed somewhat awkward. It didn't flow well. It probably would have worked better had it been broken down into shorter sentences. Roccodrift (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Part of the challenge was that I was trying to preserve some of the existing content, and yes, some of the sentences were long. I will try revising it. - MrX 22:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It is something of a challenge. I think it was awkwardly phrased, but that said I think the effort to more clearly craft the lede isa step in the right direction. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I support the idea in principle; it needs to be done. We just need a little more refinement in the execution. Roccodrift (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think it was too bad. How about:

Political activities of the Koch brothers refers to the financial and political influence of Charles G. and David H. Koch on United States (US) politics. This influence is seen both directly and indirectly via various advocacy and lobbying organizations in which they have an interest.

The Koch brothers are the sons of Fred C. Koch, who founded the second-largest privately held company in the US, Koch Industries, of which they own 84%. After buying out two other brothers' interests, they remain in control of the family business and fortune which they inherited from their father, as well as the Koch Family Foundations. Quietmarc (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I prefer this version of the opening sentence:

"The political activities of the Koch brothers include the financial and political influence of Charles G. and David H. Koch on United States (US) politics."

Roccodrift (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine to me. - MrX 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Great improvements to the lead. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you (and to everyone who helped). - MrX 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Bold addition to Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard

@Guy Macon has boldly added a new section, Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard, expanding on The Weekly Standard's rebuttal of Mayer's New Yorker article. I'm pretty sure that similar edits have been met with contention in the past. My concern is with the extent of the material, especially the 497 word quote which is not only WP:UNDUE but probably a WP:COPYVIO according to our policies. The material also needs third-party citations (and analysis) in my opinion.- MrX 12:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I reduced the size of the quote.

---

Quote from Jane Mayer article in The New Yorker: 156 words, 1063 characters

Source: 9935 words, 63606 characters

Percentage quoted: 1.68%

---

Quote from Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard (before reduction): 497 words, 3092 characters.

Source: 8414 words, 52118 characters

Percentage quoted: 5.93%

---

Quote from Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard (after reduction): 304 words, 1899 characters.

Source: 8414 words, 52118 characters.

Percentage quoted: 3.64%

---

Applicable copyright law: [6]

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

---

Various organizations have published percentages that they consider to be fair use. For example, Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri says that "For works of 2,500-4,999 words, 500 words may be copied." [7] and Kain & Associates, Attorneys at Law (a South Florida based Intellectual Property law firm) says that "A U.S. District Court (trial court) has found that when teachers at an educational institution (for example, the University of Georgia) use less than ten percent (10%) of a copyrighted book, then such use is fair use and does not constitute copyright infringement. Cambridge University Press v. Becker, Case no. 1:08-cv-01425 (N.D. Ga May 11, 2012)" [8]

---

Both quotes have exactly one third-party citation/analysis at present.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm more comfortable with the reduced quote, and I agree that it is fair use from a legal perspective. Just bear in mind that our policy is actually more restrictive than what fair use would seem to permit.- MrX 18:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I am, of course, happy to follow consensus if the consensus is that 3.64% is still too large. I would also note that, far from being "The Weekly Standard's rebuttal of Mayer's New Yorker article", Mayer's New Yorker article isn't mentioned until the 63rd paragraph (out of 87 paragraphs total), and only after mentioning Koch critics the Buffalo Beast, MSNBC, the Huffington Post, the White House, NPR (inerviewing Mayer), Anonymous, Rachel Maddow, Mike Papantonio, Ed Shultz, Frank Rich, Howard Dean, Air America, Moveon.org, the Center for American Progress, and Greenpeace. It really is a critical overview of many Koch critics, just as the Jane Mayer article is a supportive overview of many Koch critics. I think that both articles do a good job of describing and commenting upon the major Koch critics and make some very good points, but that either one alone would be too biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the whole thing got cut, which is overkill. MilesMoney (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I put it back. I would really like to hear a logical reason why the Jane Mayer article in The New Yorker section is OK but the Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard section is not. Both are highly opinionated editorials from mainstream news sources about the exact same thing; what a bunch of sources say about the political activities of the Koch brothers. Both start with a quote of approximately the same size (and we are discussing cutting the larger one down some more) and both are followed by a paragraph giving the reaction to the editorial by other editorial writers. The only reason I can think of for killing one and not the other is that someone only wants one POV in the article -- either 100% anti-Koch or 100% pro-Koch. The be encyclopedic, we need to show that they have plenty of detractors[9] and plenty of supporters.[10] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff made an edit with the edit comment "Trimmed quote to roughly same size as Mayer quote per WP:Npov." Nothing wrong with that, of course; besides giving the two quotes roughly the same WP:WEIGHT, making the article less wordy is a desirable goal in itself.

Alas, the result left highly inflammatory statements in the Mayer quote like "kingpin of climate science denial" and "their ideological network is known as the 'Kochtopus'" while deleting highly inflammatory statements like "they all slept through Economics 101" and "liberals think conservatives are evil while conservatives think liberals are stupid" in the Continetti quote.

I redid the cutting in an effort to keep it balanced. The count after I finished my edit was:

Mayer: 125 words, 871 characters.

Continetti: 130 words, 826 characters.

Mayer is 5.4% larger by character count, Continetti is 4.0% larger by word count.

As always, I am open to discussions as to how we can improve the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Koch influence at Florida State University

I know we can't use videos as sources but there is material in this video that I imagine can be retrieved. Here's my question. Part of the video deals with how Charles Koch is playing a huge role in the Economics department at FSU. Given that this is a state university, can it be construed as a facet of political activity? Here's the link: [11] --- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering this is Maddow, it is all but impossible to assume that it is being presented in a neutral tone. As such pulling anything from it is equally problematic. Construing this as political activity, aside from the basic issue of the source, is Original Research. Arzel (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can use videos as sources. We should be able to find a transcript of this and possibly some secondary sources. (I happened to see this segment, although I only infrequently watch news programs.)- MrX 13:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No we can't. And you should know better than to use 3 very biased sourced synthesised with one actual fact to push your POV. Maddow, Mother Jones...ect.. What you are including is a fact and then tying it to biased opinion to promote a POV. Not only is it a violation of WP:SYNTH but it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Arzel (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Global warming denial or skepticism

Our sources say denial. We have to be especially careful, because this is a BLP, but we don't have to use the slanted terms chosen by the subjects. MilesMoney (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This source does not say “denial of anthropogenic global warming”. I've changed the title of this section accordingly. Sounds reasonable? Skarebo (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No. The only controversy here was over whether what the Koch's call skepticism is indeed denial. The source I cited confirms that it is. There's no question about whether the subject of that skepticism denial is anthropogenic global warming. MilesMoney (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial, but if it were, this would settle it. MilesMoney (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There are 10 references in the section. The first, by Rust, uses the term "debate". She uses the term "skeptic" once. She does not use the term "denial". So there are 9 more references to consider. What do they say? But, if we start counting denial/skeptic/debate noses, are we drifting into a balance problem because one side or the other comes up with more noses? Use the term "controversy", if only because we have WP article on it. It is the NPOV Wikipedia method, and there is no debate about that. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That section refers to their funding of skeptics. I have returned it to proper verbiage. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The section title, at present, is about "anthropogenic" causes. The section title itself must reflect NPOV, and then with proper balance, the sentences supported by each reference can be tweaked towards what they say, whether it's great taste or less filling (and the funding of people involved in the controveries. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Can everyone please stop reverting each other and focus on discussing the issue here. Arzel and MilesMoney, you especially need to consider whether reverting is a good idea especially given your involvement in the last edit war. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I left Arzel's version alone and took this issue to WP:FTN for feedback, which I've acted upon. This is a simple matter: "skepticism" is a euphemism that violates WP:NPOV, so we can't use it. The mainstream media calls it denialism, as it contradicts mainstream science. We should follow their example. MilesMoney (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What a load. You had one person, who happens to be someone that is your ideological identical and supporter on many articles, agree with your biased presentation. On top of that this one editor has had ONE other comment on the FTN (in a LVM related situation as well).....seems very coincidental....Arzel (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A single comment on a noticeboard by any user falls far short of being sufficient to support an edit. On top of that, FTN was not the appropriate noticeboard for this matter. There have been policies -policies- cited in recent edit summaries that should drive the removal of any characterization at all ("anthropogenic", "skepticism" or "denialism") from the section title. The title should be simply either "Climate change" or "Global warming", and that is all that is needed to describe the section neutrally. Miles' edit should be reversed. Roccodrift (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stone uses the phrase "Global Warming's Denier Elite". Our sources seem to establish that the Koch's are not just passively questioning climate change science, but are actually using their political influence to oppose climate change legislation. - MrX 18:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Since climate change denialism is fringe science, I went to the right place. MrX is correct about our sources supporting "denialism". Nobody opposing it has offered anything that might be mistaken for a reasonable basis.

Oh, and User:Callanecc, please note how I allowed the whitewashed version to stay, escalated to the appropriate notice board, and then acted on its suggestion. In contrast, Arzel edit-warred immediately to revert cited material. Based on this, I think it's clear that there is no equivalence here. MilesMoney (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

MrX, be that as it may, our naming policies dictate that the section title merely delineate the subject matter without interpreting it or making a statement about it. The topic area is either "Global warming" or "Climate change". The title itself shouldn't contain content. Roccodrift (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite following you. The headings should summarize the content in the section. The content is not about climate change; it's about the Koch's using their political power to influence legislation. I'm open to alternative wording, but your suggestions are imprecise, and the previous heading "Global warming skepticism" is overly euphemistic. - MrX 19:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The section in itself says nothing about the Koch brothers denying global warming (or global climate change). And clearly, we cannot have a headline that uses stronger word than the content in the section. Especially not when we're talking about an issue that is BLP sensitive. I am very inclined to change the headline immediately, on the basis that possible BLP violations are to stay out of an article until the issue is settled (a policy last confirmed by ArbCom in the Manning case). Iselilja (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would choose "denial" over "skepticism" any day, but as far as the headline goes, the word "denial" seems out of place when compared with the other subheadings in the section where the header describes the issue and only the context details if they are "for" or "against" it. So, I would support changing the heading to "Global Warming" but only for consistency, not for any NPOV concerns.Quietmarc (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The section is not on global warming, it's on their funding of denialism. There cannot be a BLP issue given the strength of the reliable sources that use this term, so anyone who claims this is mistaken and needs to do some more basic research. MilesMoney (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The subsection on "Wisconsin" is not about Wisconsin, it's about their donations to particular interests. "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is not about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it is about their opposition to the act. This is what I'm getting at with my consistency comment. I agree with you MilesMoney that we should not hide their fringe viewpoint, but I don't think removing the word from the sub-heading makes a big difference.Quietmarc (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for consistency. In fact, I think you've made a good argument for fixing the other headings so that they're more informative. For example, adding "Opposition" to "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". MilesMoney (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me.Quietmarc (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it. MilesMoney (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You may have strayed into NPOV in the other direction and/or made the writing less clear, but I'm just trying to ease my way back into wikipedia editing, so I'm content to sit back and let things evolve as they may. Quietmarc (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

When have the Koch brothers ever denied that the climate changes? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Obtuse, and it doesn't matter. Their money speaks much louder than their words. Their money has paid for fringe research that just happens to support a point to view favorable to their business and political objectives. They have specifically used their money and political influence to obstruct climate change legislation. Perhaps we should call the section "Political funding and lobbying to prevent laws curtailing carbon emissions even though scientific consensus affirms anthropogenic global warming" - MrX 21:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It matters a great deal, funding groups to campaign against legislation is not "denial" in any sense of the word. So Global warming is obviously the more neutral header, or perhaps "Stance on global warming" would also work. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

DS's question was flippant, to be sure, but he also (unintentionally, I think) points out a valid issue. We have sourcing that shows the Kochs are opposed to regulating carbon emissions, but some editors are trying to take that and make the leap to say they therefore hold a particular scientific opinion. But what if the Kochs are merely trying to protect their business interests, and don't really hold the position that editors want to assign to them? What if they actually believe that climate change is a problem, but disagree that regulating carbon emissions is the correct way to address it? I think before we can say the Kochs believe one thing or another about climate change, we need sources that explicitly say so. We definitely can't look at their political spending and draw a conclusion about their scientific beliefs. Roccodrift (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not going to argue this point any longer, because I don't think it's that important and I can live with the current heading wording. - MrX 22:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Roccodrift's question "What if they actually believe that climate change is a problem, but disagree that regulating carbon emissions is the correct way to address it?", given their known positions on other issues, it is entirely plausible that they [1] believe that the climate is warming, [2] believe that the increase is caused by human activity, [3] believe that a warmer climate is undesirable, [4] believe that reducing atmospheric CO2 will solve the problem, [5] believe that the US alone reducing CO2 output will solve the problem even if China has huge increases in CO2 output, but [6] do not believe that increasing the size and power of the federal government will result in reduced CO2 emissions. If they believe that, how can you call them denialists? That would be like saying that anyone who is against making alcohol consumption illegal in the US -- again -- is a denialist on the question of whether drunk driving kills people. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we're past that. We'll never really know what they think unless they announce it to the world. What we do know is that they fund studies and lobby against climate change legislation. I an going to start a new section to discuss you recent bold addition.- MrX 12:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If we are past that, why do we have a prominent quote about Greenpeace calling them "kingpins of climate science denial"? Take a look at this and this. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation donated $150,000 to the BEST study, more than any other single organization.

Elizabeth Flock from U.S. News & World Report says:

"University of California-Berkeley Physics professor Richard A. Muller, who led the new study, told Whispers that he believes the Koch brothers really do 'want to get the science clarified.'

'People think they can look into the minds of Charles and David Koch,' says Muller, who himself was previously a climate change denier. 'But I have had conversations with them, where they are interested in the science and the proof, so that these issues [on climate change] would be resolved.'"[12]

So yes, I do think that our putting the Greenpeace "kingpins of climate science denial" accusation in such a prominent position is a NPOV problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to the Mayer quote, but this discussion was about the Global Warming Section of the article, as was my above comment. I'm not sure how the Green peace example is any different than the content that you added earlier today? For example, " “I can’t figure out how they can look at the data and not see the overwhelming benefits of the free market,” said Richard Fink." Is Richard Fink's opinion more authoritative than that of Greenpeace? Another example of a potential NPOV problem is is the self-serving quotes from Charles Koch. - MrX 04:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this issue is mostly settled on an unadorned "Global warming" as the section heading. I think it's clear that their political activism includes a variety of issues related to climate change: opposing legislation regulating greenhouse gases; arguing that legislation can't do anything to help the problem; promoting the idea that although climate change may exist, people aren't at fault; and promoting the idea that there is no climate change, only fluctuations of weather. Denial is only a part of their overall political activities related to climate change.

However, since the page title starts with the words "Political activities", and this is in the "Political activity" section, it's redundant for a sub-section heading to further make the point that the section is about political activity related to climate change, as opposed to being about climate change itself. Climate science itself (and associated fringe-science) doesn't belong in a section about political activity related to climate.

Personally, I find the term "climate change" more appropriate than "global warming", because of the popular misconception that "global warming" warms all regions in the world, as opposed to an overall average warming. However, since Wikipedia has a "Climate change" article that refers to the general topic of changes in climate, and the "Global warming" refers to current, recent change (which is a warming trend on average), "Global warming" is the appropriate title for the sub-section of this article. — Steve98052 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ayn Rand not something Koch's asked FSU to impose.

The Ayn Rand requirement came from a different donor according to the ref, not the Koch's.

A separate grant from BB&T funds a course on ethics and economics in which Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is required reading. The novel, which depicts society's collapse in the wake of government encroachment on free enterprise, was recently made into a movie marketed to tea party members.

"If somebody says, 'We're willing to help support your students and faculty by giving you money, but we'd like you to read this book,' that doesn't strike me as a big sin," said Rasmussen of the BB&T arrangement, which the bank has with about 60 schools. "What is a big sin is saying that certain ideas cannot be discussed."

The section connecting the Koch's to Ayn Rand at FSU must be removed as failing verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Mother Jones ref says "the foundation also wanted the school to start a new class on "Market Ethics: The Vices, Virtues, and Values of Capitalism," in which books by libertarian icon Ayn Rand would have been required reading." That is also what this article says, less the "libertarian icon" part.- MrX 03:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes and Mother Jones refs the Tampa Bay article. Thus we are back to the above statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

They are a tertiary source explicity relying on the Tampa source. The Tampa source says it is BB&T's requirement as does the school admin. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the MJ article relies on the the TBT article, or that they are even talking about the same class? At best, it seems ambiguous to me, and we can't use original research.- MrX 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The course referred to by Mother Jones is the same course. It it the "Market Ethics" course. Mother Jones refers to and links to the earlier Tampa Bay article which talks about the course. From the original source; "BB&T funds a course on ethics and economics in which Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is required reading." Is anyone under the impression that there are two seperate "Market Ethics" courses at FSU in the same department with the same unusual requirement but with two seperate creators? BB&T created and funded the course. Mother Jones made a minor slip up when they regurgitated the Tampa article. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

We have the explicit statement from the university that the Ayn Rand class is an arrangement with BB&T, not with the Koch's. We can not in good conscience use a tertiary source that goes against RS direct statement of the university to insert controversial material into a BLP. Suggesting that the Koch's are requiring students (indoctrinating students, in the words of one editor) to read Rand when the university itself says otherwise is contrary to policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Policy says; We must get the article right. We must use of highest-quality sources. All material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So basically the proposition is that "BB&T funds a course on ethics and economics in which Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is required reading" precludes that Ayn Rand being required reading comes from Koch Foundation, is that right? It does seem to tend that way though not with great force, perhaps there's something else that can resolve this?, if not then probably it should just be left out as not being sure enough. Why on earth people try basing how to live on drivel from a dysfunctional author is beyond me but I guess L Ron Hubbard showed the sillier the better. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct. One could theorize that these sources are discussing the same class and the same book, but that is not clear from the sources and we can not use synthesize that conclusion. Although it's beside the point, both TBT and MJ would be considered reliable sources by our standards, so who is to decide which is more accurate?- MrX 13:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering MJ is a liberal partisan opinion source, the TBT should take presidence. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources are reliable because of editorial oversight and reputation for fact checking. Political bias does not enter into decisions about whether or not to use a source. I'm surprised that you still don't understand that, considering how many times experienced editors have explained it to you.- MrX 15:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gah! This is one of the worst cases of WP:IDHT I've encountered here for a long time. Arzel isn't even a newbie, yet keeps pushing the view that bias and political POV are reasons for not using a source. This reveals an extreme lack of WP:Competence. Just one more piece of evidence for the coming RfC/U against Arzel, and strengthens the case for not just a topic ban, but a total ban from Wikipedia. We've got enough partisan POV warriors already. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If Mother Jones has very clearly conflated the issues on this, then we can just leave out the information. Is that what's happened? Even RS do this at times, and then our editorial judgment must be used. That's not necessarily OR. We are not required to use a RS, just because it exists, and slip ups do occur. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. This should not be difficult. BB&T and its leader is famous for funding classes at universities around the country that focus on Ayn Rand. [13] The CEO is a big fan of Rand and requires Ayn Rand to be taught in these classes. This is what they do and they are proud of it. The first article (Tampa Bay) makes it clear that BB&T is funding this class. The second (chronologically) MJ refers to the Tampa Bay article, there is no indication that they were doing original reporting beyond the TB link. MJ slipped up in this case, a relatively minor one, truth be told. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to removing the Ayn Rand material if we think there is doubt about the accuracy of the MJ article. I don't think it is that important to to this article.- MrX 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Florida State University grants

Arzel (talk · contribs) removed this

In 2011, the Charles G. Koch foundation made a grant of $1.5 million to Florida State University (FSU) in exchange for allowing the foundation, via an advisory committee, to approve hiring decisions in the university's economics department for a program that promotes "political economy and free enterprise". The foundation also sought to have the university create a class called Market Ethics: The Vices, Virtues, and Values of Capitalism. Required reading for the class would include books by Ayn Rand. The FSU student senate introduced a resolution protesting the Koch's "undue influence on academics as established by the current agreement between the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the FSU Economics department."

References

I would like to understand the reasoning stated int he edit summary: "One fact synthesized with 3 very biased sources is not a good way to write." What I find puzzling is three things

1. There is not "one fact"; there are several facts
2. I am not aware of a policy that preclude using biased sources, especially when they simply corroborate facts presented by less-biased sources
3. How does this long list of undids with almost no copy editing or content building in this article, give one the standing to criticize my contribution as "not a good way to write"?- MrX 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This via an advisory committee,[2] to approve hiring decisions in the university's economics department for a program that promotes "political economy and free enterprise". is the problem. This is the synthesis link between the fact (donation) and what Maddow and her biased friend think about it. You are basically saying that they dontated money solely so they could have a say in the hiring using highly biased sources to make this claim. Anythime you seem someone split a sentence with references you should be concerned about making an original research presentation. Here you simply used the reliable source as a background to try and validate the biased opinion of Maddow. If you can't see the problem with this, then I don't know what to tell you. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, what does this have to do with Political Activities? Nothing. Arzel (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Our source says "A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise." and "The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered."

Please be very specific about how you regard this as WP:SYNTH. Nowhere in the content that I added does it say that "they dontated money solely so they could have a say in the hiring". The word solely is your synthesis of what I wrote.

Also, if we took Maddow out, nothing about the facts that I listed would be changed. Please explain why you removed the entirety of this content, instead of editing it? Such an action, especially when seen as pattern of editing, seems tendentious. - MrX 16:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree the insertion seems fine and reasonable to me based on the sources. A reporter writing something that points out a problem does not automatically imply they are biased and unfit as a reporter. Better evidence is required especially when a number say something, have we others saying something different? Also I fail to see how controlling employment specifically in the political department of a university is not a political act. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We discussed this for literally months back when this occurred in 2011. The strong consensus was that this article was about the political activities of the Koch brothers, not the philanthropic/education activities. Nothing seems to have changed in either the sources or news to change that discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess were discussing it again then. Using one's money as a lever to "screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise." " sure seems like a political activity to me. I would also note that we already have similar material in the article, albeit not as well-sourced.- MrX 16:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The core idea is that not everything in life is political. Cancer research is not political. Arts funding is not political. Educational endowment grants are not political. These grants change no elections, impact no public policy, are not political. Perhaps you could start an article Cultural and philanthropic activities of the Koch brothers. Trying to shoehorn this material into an article about the political activities isn't fruitful in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 16:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wait. Is this the discussion that you referred to: Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers/Archive_4#RfC: Should the article include funding college programs promoting free enterprise?? The one where closing admin @Mr. Stradivarius said "To sum up, considering that the source-based arguments made point towards inclusion, and that slightly more editors were in favour of including the material (10 "yes" !votes versus 7 "no" !votes), it seems appropriate to close this RfC as consensus to include the material, as long as it is clearly attributed to its source. However, editors are welcome to have further discussion about the appropriate amount of weight to give to the available sources."? - MrX 17:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Interesting, but a red herring. I'm not aware of donations to cancer research that require patients to read Ayn Rand, or that allow benefactors to choose what scientists will conduct the research.- MrX 17:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Ayn Rand? Perhaps you don't understand my point. Education, arts, culture, and medicine grants do not fall under the rubric of political. They just don't. The Kochs give to over 195 universities. We have sources for it. We can't add them because these are not under any stretch of the imagination political. What campaign is impacted, what public policy or regulation is affected? None. This proposed educational addition doesn't belong in this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As relates to hiring. I have been involved in raising money to fund a Chair at a public university. In my experience the donors most certainly asked for the input into the selection of the recipient. The university seemed to view that as a standard request. So, yes, it seems to me that donors quite ordinarily have input into who will recieve their money. I can't imagine anyone was "Shocked, shocked!" by this request. The mere involvement in the hiring doesn't make this a political activity. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that our sources consider this a political activity. For example, the Tampa Bay Times article says "The foundation partnering with FSU is one of several non-profits funded by Charles Koch (pronounced "coke"), 75, and his brother David, 71. The aim: To advance their belief, through think tanks, political organizations and academia, that government taxes and regulations impinge on prosperity."

While we can explore a new consensus, the RFC from a little more a year ago documents the status quo consensus for this material to be included. - MrX 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear cut to me. An RfC asked the specific question "Should the article include funding college programs promoting free enterprise??" and the closing admin concluded "consensus to include the material, as long as it is clearly attributed to its source." That settles it until someone posts another RfC and gets a different result. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that the RfC from 2012 saw that this if it were to be used could only be identified as political in the opinion of the Tampa Bay paper. The current proposed addition is not consistent with that RfC. That RfC also didn't address the undue nature of the proposed addition. It was a close/marginal RfC which is one reason why this material isn't in the article. I suggest we should get a non-stale RfC going. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not a reasonable interpretation of the RfC consensus nor the sources. This content is almost entirely factual, with very little opinion. There is nothing undue about it at all. If you wish to explore a new consensus for omitting this content, feel free to start another RfC. Meanwhile, two editors cannot blockade content when an existing consensus and a majority of editors support the content. - MrX 00:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, post a new RfC and make your case there. If your argument is compelling, I will support your preferred version (right now I could go either way). Do not attempt to force your preferred version by removing material against the 2012 consensus. Also, it doesn't matter whether the RfC was close. An uninvolved closer evaluated the RfC and chose between consensus to keep, no consensus, and consensus to delete. That's the nice thing about RfCs; an unambiguous answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, in principle, we really don't care whether it is or is not a political activity. We care what our sources think it is, and as you correctly point out, it is "the opinion of the Tampa Bay paper" that it is a political activity of the Koch brothers.

When they seek to use their money to indoctrinate political POV into students, that is very much a political activity, under the guise of an act of charity. Their motives are quite plain, and the sources point this out, so the sources settle the matter for us, and it's our job to present their POV on the matter.

It is very unwikipedian, and a direct violation of NPOV, for editors to allow their own opinions and political biases to keep out sources when those sources are incovenient. All that content, with all the sources, is currently in the article and should remain. Period. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

First point, the Tampa Bay ref on inspection does not say that this is a political effort of the Koch's. It is the opinion of some editors here that it is political, not in the ref. It is the opinion of the Tampa Bay writer that the Koch's "aim is to advance their beliefs" and philosophy. If we care what our sources say, and the sources do not assert that it is political I suggest we don't read that into the source.

Second point, the Tampa Bay ref says nothing about "indoctrinating students" the criticism is about a veto of hiring decisions, about academic freedom not politics.

Third, I removed no sources, inconvenient or otherwise. I carefully removed a section that asserts that educational grants are political activities. Many wikipedians have agreed with the me on the incorrectness of that assessment. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Having never begun an RfC before I will have to first read the process before beginning it.

Just as an observation, the Koch brothers are severely limited in what they can do that would be effective. If they were Democrats they could support Democrat candidates, and if they were Republicans the could support Republican candidates, but being Libertarians -- a party that struggles to get 1% of the vote -- they only candidates they can support with a chance of winning are at best only in partial agreement with them on some issues. Can you blame them for wanting to insure that libertarianism is exposed to students who are taught that liberals and conservatives are all that exists? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't blame them at all, I just don't see this educational thing as politics. This may be something to criticise the Koch's for (impinging on academic freedom) but this isn't the criticism article it's the political activities article. This might be better added to the Charles Koch page. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's political; the reliable sources described it as such. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If Ayn Rand and free market capitalism are irrelevant to U.S. politics, then someone should tell the Tea Party. They can stop supporting candidates and attacking Democrats because the economic views they hold have nothing to do with politics. TFD (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The ref says another donor to the university not the Koch's created the requirement regarding Ayn Rand. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this section solely discusses the actions of the Charles G. Koch foundation, should it not be at the Koch family foundations article which explicitly covers the Charles G. Koch foundation, rather than here at this extension of the Koch brothers's BLP's? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a parallel article for George Soros' political activities?

Is there an article detailing George Soro's political activities like this one does and, what really started my question, is there a graph like the one just added showing the flow of money like that one recently added to this article? 173.122.77.121 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That article does not exist, but you are welcome to create it. If you need help, see Wikipedia:Your first article. We do have George Soros#Political donations and activism. As for the graph, that depends on whether you can find a reliable source with a similar graph for Soro. We can only report what is in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The article would be a spin off of the section in the Soros article and should only be created if there is information not already covered there. You are best to discuss it at the Soros talk page. TFD (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There's certainly plenty to be said, but make sure you carefully evaluate the information you're dealing with, as you can clearly see here what sort of mess all these political topics invariably devolve into. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)