Talk:David Koch/Archive 2

RSN:The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers
Please see: WP:RSN#The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers.  Will Beback   talk    23:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Add "... the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning."
Add "Charles and David Koch are called the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning." http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-berkeley-climate-20110331,0,2472031.story  99.181.129.120 (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Should only be in the politics article, and only in the body, not in the lede. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See more discussion on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family #RFC the nation most prominent funders 99.181.155.158 (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Political advocacy
Why have such a lengthy section when a parent article exists on the same topic? I will trim down to one paragraph unless there are objections. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Formaldehyde is a cancer causing agent
Cancer risk due to formaldehyde is well known in the medical literature, many peer reviewed articles have described the statistically significant association: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=formaldehyde%20cancer

CDC Report http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0293.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that this association is well known in the cancer research community. Formaldehyde increases the risk of cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Involvement at the National Institutes of Health
Why aren't all of Koch's influential involvement in areas outside his expertise mentioned?

Jun 11, 2011 After David Koch Leaves NIH Board, NIH Hands Down Long-Delayed Classification Of Top Koch Pollutant As A Carcinogen.

Large manufacturers and chemical producers have lobbied ferociously to stop the National Institutes of Health from classifying formaldehyde as a carcinogen. A wide body of research has linked the chemical to cancer, but industrial polluters have stymied regulators from action.

Last year, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer reported that billionaire David Koch, whose company Georgia Pacific (a subsidiary of Koch Industries) is one of the country’s top producers of formaldehyde, was appointed to the NIH cancer board at a time when the NIH delayed action on the chemical. The news was met with protests from environmental groups. Faced with mounting pressure from Greenpeace and the scientific community, Koch left offered an early resignation from the board in October.

Yesterday, the NIH finally handed down a report officially classifying formaldehyde as a carcinogen.

From: thinkprogress.org/green/2011/06/11/242917/nih-carcinogen-koch-industries/

See also: www.democracynow.org/2011/6/14/formaldehyde_added_to_known_carcinogens_list

99.50.160.8 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You need better sources than those for a BLP--ones that aren't so ideological. Drrll (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First richest in NYC?
The article says David Koch is the second richest person in NYC, which the referenced nymag.com article says is behind Michael Bloomberg. However, according to the wikipedia articles on them both David Koch's net worth is $22.5 billion and Michael Bloomberg's is $18.1 billion. Something doesn't add up here, this would seem to indicate David Koch is the richest person in NYC. 118.93.187.243 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a very good point. I did the same search and I found the same thing. It's possible we are both missing someone, though I can't think of who that might be. GrainyMagazine (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Kochs on wiki
The Koch brothers employ many, many PR people to disguise their true selves. I just read David Koch's bio on wikipedia and you'd think he was Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King and Gandhi rolled into one! Someone must counter the incessant altering of the truth about the Koch's multi-million-dollar assaults on the environment, financial reform and programs that benefit the middle class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.187.60 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the allegation about an organization funded by the Kochs editing Wikipedia appears to be completely untrue; or, at least, "not proven" by Wikipedia standards.
 * Someone must counter the astroturfed opposition to the Kochs, which appear to come from a multitude of sources, but, in reality, come from followers of 2 journalists, probably funded by Soros....
 * Seriously, if you can find reliable sources which meet our WP:BLP requirements, you can add the material. I don't think those exist.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Astroturfing. In contrast, see Grassroots, as in 350.org wp article.  99.181.145.99 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Arthur: as a sometime-editor of Koch related articles, and one who is interested in seeing a better balance in the articles than the current near-hagiography, I would very much like to know where I can apply for this "Soros money". I assume you are being facetious, but otherwise, as the saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right". Arjuna (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As a sometime-editor of Koch related articles, I would very much like to know if you guys have something specific you would like to change about this article. As the saying goes, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" Bonewah (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to be snarky, or to insinuate that other editors have an agenda. (Unless of course, you are projecting.) This is bad form, and I expect better from an editor. Arjuna (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know how I could get some of the alleged Koch money, as I've been accused of being an agent of the Kochtopus, I'd like to get paid for it. .  Seriously, my "Soros" paragraph above was intended to be sarcasm, although the statement being "Seriously" was intended as a real response to the allegations from the IP above.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, my comment wasn't directed at you but at Bonewah. Thanks for your comment on my talk page the other day; I figured that was the case but appreciate the note. Arjuna (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would like some Koch money too, please - and in fact since my integrity is pretty much rock solid, you can tell them I would be an excellent way for them to show that their money does not compromise editorial integrity. ;-) Arjuna (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Real Estate?
Why is there a section devoted to his real estate venture? This seems like it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Thoughts? GrainyMagazine (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the section seems out of place. Perhaps if Koch was know for his real estate ventures, but he's primarily a philanthropist. PeabodyJones (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we decide not to remove it, we should combine the information with another section. Just doesn't seem important enough to merit its own section. Wirelesswonderer (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with article
Here are a number of problems I have with the article: style, poor quoting, selection of facts. We should at a very minimum introduce the statement by saying that he played on the basketball team. We could also strengthen the sentence as follows: "Koch averaged 21 points per game at MIT over three years, a school record. He also held the single-game scoring record of 41 points from 1962 until 2009 when it was eclipsed by Jimmy Bartolotta.     This selection is from the Mayer piece and obviously intended to demean Koch's libertarianism.  I would suggest either removing this blurb or balancing it other parts of his platform. This quote seems forced.  Wouldn't a better statement just mention that they now play a less visible role in politics, focusing on funding think tanks and universities. Do we really need this quote?  simply stating his political influence should be fine, right? Again, there seems to be ample block quoting in the article that makes it difficult to read. I think summaries would suffice here.
 * "He established an MIT record in basketball by scoring an average of 21 points per game over three years, and held MIT's single-game scoring record of 41 points, from 1962 when he was captain of the team,[3] until it was broken in early 2009 by Jimmy Bartolotta."
 * "The ticket proposed legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide.[2]"
 * "After the bid, according to a book by Brian Doherty, an editor of Reason magazine, David and his brother Charles viewed politicians as "actors playing out a script" and they wanted to "supply the themes and words for the scripts" by influencing "the areas where policy ideas percolate from: academia and think tanks".[2]"
 * "Koch credits the campaign of Roger MacBride as his inspiration for getting involved in politics, telling a reporter from New York magazine:"Here was a great guy, advocating all the things I believed in. He wanted less government and taxes, and was talking about repealing all these victimless crime laws that accumulated on the books. I have friends who smoke pot. I know many homosexuals. It's ridiculous to treat them as criminals—and here was someone running for president, saying just that."[12] "
 * "According to Koch, he gave his own Vice Presidential campaign $100,000 a month after being chosen as Ed Clark's running mate. "We'd like to abolish the Federal Elections Commission and all the limits on campaign spending anyway," Koch told New York magazine's Rinker Buck in 1980. When asked why he ran, Koch replied:"Lord knows I didn't need a job, but I believe in what the Libertarians are saying. I suppose if they hadn't come along, I could have been a big Republican from Wichita. But hell—everybody from Kansas is a Republican."[12]"

My apologies for not bringing these suggestions to the discussion page first.Wirelesswonderer (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. That sounds fine to me.
 * 2. The text already include a range of platform issues: The Clark–Koch ticket promised to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE.[2][12] The ticket proposed legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide.[2] What's missing?
 * 3. Your proposed text doesn't capture the dismissive view of politicians, or the intent to control the 'actors' from off-stage.
 * 4. I'm not sure what you're proposing exactly - do you want to drop all mention of MacBride? The quote itself seems relatively pithy - it'd be hard to summarize it in significantly fewer words.
 * 5. What kind of summary would you propose?   Will Beback    talk    16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I went ahead a edited the sentence.
 * 2. Per your argument, I'll leave it alone.
 * 3. saying that they wanted to fund think tanks and the Academy is the same as saying they wanted to control the actors just without the pejorative connotation.
 * 4. The MacBride quote seems unnecessary. If the point is to show that he wants to abolish the Federal Election Commission, we could just state that.

Wirelesswonderer (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 3. There is a pejorative connotation because the quotation has a pejorative sound to it. The quote has appeared in two publications about Koch. Your proposal does not capture the connotation of the quotation, and I doubt that it'd be possible to convey that in a summary.
 * 4. That quote, while a bit long, makes multiple assertions. Can you propose a summary that would include all of them?   Will Beback    talk    03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

philanthropy section
The philanthropy section is jumbled. We should put bullet points in the section to separate the major donations. Also, we need a political donations section. Wirelesswonderer (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullet points might put too much emphasis on individual donations. Maybe it could be presented in prose rather than a bulleted list.   Will Beback    talk    03:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about combining the smaller donations, say, 25 million and under in prose form and the larger ones, especially the 100 million for cancer center into a bullet point? Wirelesswonderer (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight
Is there any reason why the articles by Mayer and Goldman are cited 17 times throughout? Could we not find other sources?--GrainyMagazine (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think the attack pieces by Mayer and Goldman should be cited at all. But, apparently, the Kochs make great efforts to remain private, so reputable journalists don't have much to say.  (And, yes, my intent was to imply that Mayer is not a reputable journalist.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well not citing them at all seems a bit drastic to me. Having said that Wikipedia has a policy about it, and so I do think that no single source should be given preference over others. 17 citations definitely breach WP:RSUW IMO.--GrainyMagazine (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made attempts previously to remove some of the information cited from the Mayer article, but all the edits are reverted. I agree that we should reduce the amount of info cited by the Mayer piece.Wirelesswonderer (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the NPOV quotes that seem like obvious violations. Most of the info cited by the articles are basic facts.Wirelesswonderer (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not undo edits without leaving an edit summary as you did here, except in cases of obvious vandalism. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for adding the blurb about them supporting policies that are geared toward individual liberty and free market principles (although you don't seem to have a problem with the last) is that it gives a coherence to the laundry list of policies that Mayer believes they support. If you believe my edit is a NPOV violation, then I'd be open to putting something along the lines of "Koch supports policies that he believes promote..." I'll wait on your response.  Wirelesswonderer (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is the contentious sentence, is it "promoted individual liberty and free market principles"? Are we in disagreement about that? Also of note, can you guys address my previous comment about WP:RSUW?--GrainyMagazine (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, whether saying "he supports policies that promote individual liberty and free market principles" is a NPOV violation. Concern your previous post, I went through the article and removed a number of quotes that seemed intended to give undue weight to a particular opinion or were selected for a rhetorical purpose.  I agree that those two journalists have a disproportionate representation on the page.  I'd suggest limiting their influence to basic facts. Wirelesswonderer (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Having seen some of the last edits, I am going to reiterate the need of balance in the article. Editors seem to be engaged in unacceptable POV pushing. In fact, I removed the following from the article: Please note that the quote used, and supported by Mayer's article, is an unatributted comment that wasn't even made to Mayer directly. So I ask again, why are editors prepared to abandon Wiki policy by giving undue weight to unsubstantiated gossip?--GrainyMagazine (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...According to Doherty’s book, the Kochs came to regard elected politicians as merely “actors playing out a script.” A longtime confidant of the Kochs told Doherty that the brothers wanted to “supply the themes and words for the scripts.” In order to alter the direction of America, they had to “influence the areas where policy ideas percolate from: academia and think tanks.”
 * Thanks for catching that misattribution. However journalists' sources aren't "unsubstantiated gossip".    Will Beback    talk    21:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I think there's consensus among all of us about the need to maintain a strict observance of WP:BLP. Furthermore, I reckon we'll all agree that journalists are prone to subjectity as much as the rest of us. What we can do, easily, is to reject use of unattributed comments to advance particular POVs.--GrainyMagazine (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the Mayer profile is gossip.   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear on one thing: I have not said, nor do I think, that the Mayer article is gossip. What I do think, and have clearly stated above, is that Mayer and Goldman views have been given undue weight. 17 citations throughout. That is a clear breach of WP:RSUW, and is in my opinion unacceptable, especially when said articles are being used as the ultimate sources of truths about the Kochs. Particularly worrying then, to find within Mayer's article unattributed quotes that are being passed as genuine facts. I would be equally concerned if views sympathetic to the Kochs would be given such relevance and prominence. We should strive for balance and uphold Wiki policy.--GrainyMagazine (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Mayer and Goldman articles are probably cited so frequently because they are long, detailed profiles. Both sources are very reliable. If there are other sources that are equal or better then we can add more material from them.   Will Beback    talk    18:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the sources are reliable. However, even if they were, many of the "facts" we use the articles to support are quotes from unreliable sources, with little in the article indicating that the author agrees in detail.  We need to attribute the quotes to those sources, rather than to Mayer and Goldman.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We've been over this before. We've received community input at RSN which confirmed that the New Yorker and New York magazines are reliable sources. If you continue to insist that they are not then we could ask for further input, but at some point making the same protest over and over becomes tendentious editing or "I didn't hear that".    Will Beback    talk    17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Will. This looks like tendentious and POV editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

<-(OD) I agree with GrainyMag, the views of Mayer and Goldman are overrepresented in this article. Being reliable sources doesnt change that. Further, the quote mentioned above, “actors playing out a script.”, is from an anonymous source, and I think should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonewah (talk • contribs)


 * The problem here is that there are very few reliable sources which have reported on the subject. This is due to the subject's secrecy, which is well-known and reliably attested to. The New Yorker article has been deemed a reliable source and can be used in the article. If users have additional reliable sources, their contributions are welcomed. It is difficult to understand how this constitutes a good reason to remove content from the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So since the subject's personal life is secret we should use anoynomous sources to describe them? That is actually a very strong argument to remove many of the statements.  Arzel (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mayer is not an anonymous source.   Will Beback    talk    01:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, she isn't. But when she quotes anonymous sources without giving an indication whether she agrees, we shouldn't use them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So you think that Mayer is an unreliable source?   Will Beback    talk    02:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 11 October 2011
More than one source required!

Megurley24 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This article does not adequately address what David H. Koch is primarily known for around the world - a polluter and leading anti-climate change campaigns, anti-President Obama campaigns, pro-Tea Party campaigns. In 50 years, when one looks back on David H. Kock and family, this is what he will be known for - not his philanthropy to an MIT Cancer Institute but causing cancer in Arkansas at his General Pacific plant, and generally leading anti-progressive thought in America. A wiki entry on him should address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.154.203 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. There is no doubt that his total direct contributions to environmentally neutral charities exceed his total contributions, direct and indirect, to what you call "anti-progressive thought".  It's possible that history will remember him as you suggest, but only if history becomes even more ideological than it is at present.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Climate_change_controversy and Climate change denial ... 141.218.36.144 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note (added after archiving). The above IP was and is the sock of a blocked IP range.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Two problems: one grammatical and many factual
In the Arts subsection of the philanthropy section, it says, "In July 2008, Koch pledged $100 million over 10 years to renovate the New York State Theater in the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts (now called the David H. Koch Theater)...". As that could suggest that Lincoln Center is being renamed, I suggest moving the parentheses closer to the original name of the theater. For example, "In July 2008, Koch pledged $100 million over 10 years to renovate the New York State Theater (now called the David H. Koch Theater) in the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts...".

There is a clearly incorrect link in the second paragraph of the article when it refers to the "American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing". That link goes to the museum in New York when the donation was made to the Smithsonian museum in Washington, DC. The correct link is provided in the Education subsection of the Philanthropy section but this paragraph itself is clearly riddled with errors. The $20 million gift to the "American Museum of Natural History" (NY) was actually made to the National Museum of Natural History (DC) which is correctly named and linked in the next phrase in that sentence. The last sentence in this paragraph seems to report a separate gift when, in fact, part of it was reported earlier in the paragraph. According to linked articles, the Human Origins gift was about $20 million and the Dinosaur Hall gift was about $35 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfrostat (talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is he a Jew?
Is he Jewish? If so, please add it in the article.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.123.247 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not Jewish. His grandfather was a non-Jewish immigrant from the Netherlands. His other grandparents were Anglo-American. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

biased
David Koch's article reads like it was written by David Koch himself. He is incredibly controversial among many groups of people for his pro-pollution, climate change denier position. I think this is very underrepresented in this article and should be corrected.152.10.221.90 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It reads to me as if it were written by his political enemies; so perhaps it is WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is pretty biased towards Koch and his views. I would like to see where there is an source that states Koch donated to the ACLU and also a source that supports the claim that Koch has donated to so-called "liberal" causes. Furthermore, from reading the talk page for this article, it is clear that this man Arthur Rubin cannot keep his own POV in line concerning this article. He is a troll on here and his edits/comments prove so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.180.153 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a source that he's donated more to non-political charities than to political causes. I have no idea if he's donated to the ACLU, but there is certainly a source.  And I suggest that you remove your comment about me, as it's a violation of more than one Wikipedia policy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point about donating to non-political charities is a bit of a red-herring. Giving a lot to charity is fairly typical of a man of his wealth, but the Koch brothers political donations are definitely unusually large (however, it's somewhat difficult to find a reliable source on their political donations in this specific campaign season, with some giving sensationalistic figures like 1 billion, and before the Citizens United and Speechnow rulings their spending really wasn't much higher than, for instance, George Soros.)108.131.86.192 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request- New York State Theater.
Update information; the New York State Theater (now the David H. Koch Theater) is no longer home to the New York City Opera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aureliusweb (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs=opinion?
Adventurous Squirrel keeps deleting info sourced to news articles from news blogs located on news sites and written by news reporters. Saying they are 'opinion'. I am sure this is not agenda driven editing, and is probably a coincidental series of mistakes or misunderstandings.Sally Season (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please remove your personal attack against me. I explained my reasoning in detail on the talk page for the koch family for the sentences I removed.  Some of the statements made were not present in the sources. As for as this page, I did not delete anything. I added 'according to the author' which is common practice for references from blogs or opinion pieces. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It is also common practice to delete factual information based on policy pretense. That doesn't make it right. The npov policy here says directly that presenting factual information as if it were opinion is against policy. Would you like me to quote the exact words?Sally Season (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have acted civilly in each interaction I have had with you, even while you have followed me to different pages to revert me. The talk page is here for us to discuss the issues in the article, so if I make an edit that you disagree with, please use the talk page to explain your reasoning and we can discuss it and come up with a compromise. There is no need for the hostility and I want to ask again that you delete the personal attack in your first comment here.
 * The original sentence said that "Koch supports Republican candidates and California Proposition 23 (2010)" and was sourced to a news blog. I edited it to remove 'Republican candidates' because it was not supported by the source, and I added 'According to Todd Woody of New York Times' because since it said blog I assumed meant opinion, and if I'm wrong about that I apologize. After you reverted, I should have started the discussion rather than re-revert so I apologize for that as well, but you did add back the Republican part that wasn't supported. I saw that you added a new source for the proposition statement. I still think it would be good to keep searching for a source that directly shows that David Koch supports it though, since that source is about a donation from Koch Industries and not specifically David Koch. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the statement would be better suited on the Koch Industries page instead of here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said you haven't acted civilly, but that doesn't mean there are not problems with your editing. I reworded what you say is an attack. When you say it would be good to keep searching for sources, am I to understand that to mean you are looking for sources, too, or should I understand that to mean you will be handling only the deletions while leaving the sourcing to other editors?Sally Season (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A sarcastic attack is still an attack. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A valid, substantiated observation is never an attack, unless you are guilty.Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)I will take your reply as an answer to my question.Sally Season (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Try WP:Do not feed the trolls as one example where editors are advised not to reply to personal attacks (not using the term to apply to you, of course).   Assuming that a person who does not reply to your post is acquiescing to your point is risky indeed.

Political advocacy section
I moved this sentence: "The Koch brothers support primarily Republican candidates, who received over 80% of their political donations from 2005-2009, and they support California Proposition 23 (2010).   " to the Political activities of the Koch brothers page. Based on the title of that page, it is more appropriate there. The section on this page should be for political activity related only to David Koch. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Paragraphs 3 and 4 (about Jane Mayer and Kimberly ODennis) of the Political advocacy section have to do with both Charles and David Koch and both of those topics are discussed already on the Political activities of the Koch brothers page. Doesn't seem necessary to repeat them here too. Should they be removed? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I count at least 8 content items present in this article that are also covered in the other article you mention. What is the decision-making process used to keep some redundant info here, while moving other redundant info over there?Sally Season (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Place the material where it is most directly relevant - (I trust you are not referring to names and such which are not a problem). Collect (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I don't see that being practiced here, and that is why I asked.Sally Season (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I see you have deleted properly sourced, directly relevant, informative text without giving an actual reason. You mention something being "discussed repeatedly", but I don't see it here anywhere. Could you direct me to it? Also, did you mean to say that every edit made on wiki must first get a consensus of editors? That is how your editing summary reads. I thought developing consensus only applied when expressed objections or disagreements arose.Sally Season (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. You are adding material which is trivia, which is covered in other articles, and which is poorly sourced per WP:BLP. And which has, indeed, been discussed here without you gaining consensus for your slow edit war to insert it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please specify which is which, so I'm sure we are discussing the same things? Let's start with the discussion you say exists about David Koch addressing tea party leaders. Help me out here, you are tossing all kinds of policy names at me without showing how they apply.Sally Season (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK -- an opinion article, which you rely on for the "Tea Party" reference is usable only for an opinion ascribed as such. It is not usable for a contentious claim.  Reverted per requirements of WP:BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is a news article from their "Investigative Unit". I do not see the contentious claim, either.  The source supports that he spoke to tea party leaders, nothing more.  How is that contentious?  Also you repeated that the same information cannot exist in the same article, according to policy.  I asked you to link this policy back on the 10th.  You ignored it.  I will ask you again to link that policy. Also please note that IF that is really a policy, and you are not just making things up, there are many instances of information being duplicated in this article and in that other article, yet you leave those be.  That appears to me to be transparently selective. You should address these points instead of continue on with your slow edit warring.Sally Season (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say he spoke at a Tea Party event; it says he is reported to have spoken to "Tea Party leaders". I've fixed it.  The claim that he is "reported to have spoken" is not contraversial; it's made in a contraversial documentary, but the claim isn't contraversial.  It may be WP:UNDUE, but it's not a BLP violation to say he is reported to have spoken.....

another backing reference?

 * Report: 'Secret Sins' of Koch Industries include ABC News reference? 64.109.54.142 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinion article - not usable for contentious claims of fact. Collect (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * News article - perfectly suitable for uncontested facts.Sally Season (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinion - only suitable for uncontensted (even in unreliable sources) claims of fact. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Politics in lead
David Koch is well-known for his political activism; I'd think the lead should mention something about this, a bit more specific than "He and his brother Charles have also donated to political advocacy groups, including Americans for Prosperity." After all, he has been a Libertarian candidate for President. I'd think the last sentence of the first paragraph should read something like "Koch is an active participant and major donor to libertarian and conservative political causes." --Macrakis (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2012
Please add the following Bloomberg Billionaires List reference to the first paragraph:

As of October of 2012, Koch was listed at the 7th richest person in the world, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

CubanellePep (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am uncertain that subjective opinions from one source of "ten richest people" or the like are all that encyclopedic in the first place, and if we use this we should also use the dozen other places which make such ratings? Collect (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of the above comment I am closing this request as Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: due to lack of consensus. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful feedback. I believe the Bloomberg Billionaires Index is a reliable news source with also provides information on these individuals along with their wealth estimates. There is currently no global wealth ranking as of now for David Koch. I simply added the (7th richest person in the world) to the first paragraph: Please consider the following edit:

As of 2012, Koch is the fourth richest person in America, the 7th richest person in the world [8] and the second-richest resident of New York City as of 2010.[3][4]


 * It is, at very best, opinion. AFAICT, there are no authoritative lists of wealth, and since currency fluctuations can be huge, it is likely there can never be an accurate list applying to "the world" (how does one "value" the Crown holdings of the UK?).   One could list company valuations for publicly held corporations, but Koch Industries does not fit in such a list.  Collect (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on February 25, 2013
I noticed that the criticism of an article negative towards Koch in the Political Advocacy section came from a magazine run by a foundation that Koch himself is a board member of (citation 42). The article cited is called "The Official Koch Industries Reply," but the text in the Wikipedia article makes it seem like the criticism came from a third party. At least acknowledge potential bias in the source. Thank you. Balamcoatl (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I was auto-confirmed, so I wrote a little myself. I did a little more reading and found other criticisms, so I added another quotation from the main article on the Political activities of the Koch brothers which seemed to condense the argument effectively (Conor Friedersdorf's writing). However, I'm not sure this solves the original problem. Balamcoatl (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Predecessor companies
In 1925, Fred C. Koch joined an MIT classmate at an engineering firm in Wichita, Kansas, which was renamed the Winkler-Koch Engineering Company. In 1927 he developed a more efficient thermal cracking process for turning crude oil into gasoline. This process threatened the competitive advantage of established oil companies, which sued for patent infringement. Temporarily forced out of business in the United States, Koch turned to other markets, including the Soviet Union, where Winkler-Koch built 15 cracking units between 1929 and 1932. During this time, Koch came to despise communism and Josef Stalin's regime. In his 1960 book, A Business Man Looks at Communism, Koch wrote that he found the Soviet Union to be "a land of hunger, misery, and terror." According to Charles Koch, "Virtually every engineer he worked with [there] was purged."

In 1940, Koch joined new partners to create a new firm, the Wood River Oil and Refining Company, which is today known as Koch Industries. In 1946 the firm acquired the Rock Island refinery and crude oil gathering system near Duncan, Oklahoma. Wood River was later renamed the Rock Island Oil & Refining Company. Charles Koch joined Rock Island in 1961, having started his career at the management consulting firm Arthur D. Little. He became president in 1966 and chairman at age 32, upon his father's death the following year.

Koch Industries
The company was renamed Koch Industries in honor of Fred Koch, the year after his death. At that time, it was primarily an engineering firm with part interest in a Minnesota refinery, a crude oil-gathering system in Oklahoma, and some cattle ranches. In 1968 and 1969, Charles tried to buy Union Oil's share of the Great Northern Oil Company and its Pine Bend Refinery, but Union Oil was unwilling to sell. When J. Howard Marshall II threw his lot in with Koch, they together acquired a majority interest in the company. Ownership of Pine Bend refinery led to several new businesses and capabilities, including chemicals, fibers, polymers, asphalt and other commodities such as petroleum coke and sulfur. These were followed by global commodity trading, gas liquids processing, real estate, pulp and paper, risk management and finance.

In 1970, Charles was joined at the family firm by his brother David Koch. Having started as a technical services manager, David became president of Koch Engineering in 1979. oceanflynn 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please add "Koch Carbon is controlled by David and Charles G. Koch."
Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David. 141.218.36.56 (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? If it's part of Koch Industries (which it probably is), it should only be mentioned in that article.  Even if it isn't part of Koch Industries, it would be better placed in that article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Meanwhile as it sells an "unwanted byproduct" overseas - it is actually being a "green" company in this case. Collect (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: clarify Atlantic quotation
This article would be strengthened with a parenthetical reference at the end of the quotation from the Atlantic article (citation no 45): Following the quotation, a parenthetical reference, (Emphases in original), should be added:  ... pushing back against some of its conclusions." (Emphasis in original.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aha249 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.--Polmandc (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador Bridge
Also this section (see below) from New York Times Ambassador Bridge article which is currently being edited should be re-edited and included. I'd do it myself but I do not have authority for this page.

Ambassador Bridge Area Marred by Mountain of Koch's Petcoke
Detroit's Marathon Petroleum began refining bitumen from Canadian oil sands in November, 2012 and now refines 28,000 barrels a day producing petroleum coke or petcoke. Charles Charles and David Koch, wealthy industrialists, own Koch Carbon which purchases the black "high-sulfur, high-carbon waste" petroleum coke stored by Detroit Bulk Storage which uses an open storage method, creating an unsightly three-story high stockpile of their product covering an entire city block beside the Detroit River near the Ambassador Bridge. It is highly visible from Assumption Park, Windsor, Ontario which used to have a lovely views of the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit skyline. Petcoke which is nearly pure carbon, and therefore a potent source of carbon dioxide when burned, cannot be burned as fuel in the United States United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2013, the Koch brothers, who challenge the science behind human activity causing climate change sell petcoke overseas as fuel. Since Koch Carbon only ships the petroleum coke overseas once a year in November, the pile grows throughout the year. oceanflynn 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * not relevant to this article, as far as I can tell. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why not. Where does the buck stop? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably Koch Industries (if not undue weight), possibly the "Political activities" article, not here. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's clear enough that "petcoke" is a *business practice*. Your objection to it is political. J Civil 15:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan civil (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2014
Kacius42 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC) David H. Koch is far from a philanthropist (which is the fifth word on his wiki description for some reason). He pours millions into organizations that contribute significantly to right wing Republican candidates in order to protect the interests of the rich as they systematically rob the poor in the united states. He also funds lobbyists whom lobby against universal health care and climate change legislation... not a philanthropist. Please take that word out, it is an offensive lie, I can see why the article is semi-protected.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article sufficiently cites that Koch is a philanthropist due to his donations to medical research, among other things. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disinformation about climate change and misanthropy
also added to Charles page since they always appear documented together:

Plenty of documentation about the subject:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/13/koch-brothers-make-climate-activists-new-target.html http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/reid-koch-climate-change_n_5282024.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.145.246 (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the cover-up?
Charles and David Koch inherited one of the largest privately (family) owned companies in the U.S. They worked harder than you or I to inherit the company from their father. It was already worth many billions at the time.

However, Wikipedia chooses not to mention here how David Koch got his money, his massive inheritance, or his powerful and secretive company because talking about money is dirty, or something. Anyway, the story is being covered up here. Who is ashamed of the truth? WoodyinNYC (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014
Removal of the term philanthropist from the base description of David Koch. Mr Koch is not particularly generous and so does not deserve the term philanthropist. And if he's been given it because he gives money to other people or organisations, then the term itself is fundamentally meaningless as everyone does this.

109.231.226.212 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ sources say he is a philanthropist. Our opinions of what deserves the term mean nothing.  -- GB fan 15:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversial
Either it's reasonable to call the New Yorker article controversial because it was criticized by conservatives and the Koch evolution exhibit controversial because it was criticized by liberals or it's reasonable to call neither controversial. It's biased to pick and choose. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Politics Daily
Is currently in Huffington Post. Collect (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I added that Lewis has spoken for Americans for Prosperity, which speaks to his objectivity.- MrX 15:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong -- unless you add parenthetical claims about every author cited. It is enough to give his name - but can you imagine if we included every group every writer has worked for?  Sorry -- that would stink regarding WP:NPOV.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong; I think you mean you disagree with it. Note that the source felt it necessary to make that disclosure, so I'm not sure why we wouldn't. Lewis seems to be somewhat of a Koch advocate not that that's a bad thing .- MrX 16:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you propose changes at MOS and other pages about parenthetical observations about authors. The person is wikilinked it appears. Collect (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing a style change. I merely think that, in this case, the fact that the criticism comes from a writer/blogger known for supporting the Koch's should be easily accessible to our readers. The matter is one of editor discretion at this article, and nothing more. A wikilink is better than nothing, but the text that I added (and you removed) was an improvement, in my opinion.- MrX 21:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

David Koch's philanthropy in context of political advocacy
David Koch's philanthrophic contributions are in the context of his political work to discourage public funding for public institutions. (And the public funding is orders of magnitude larger than Koch's contributions.) With respect to cancer research, Koch's organizations also oppose regulation of the carcinogens Koch Industries produces. It's misleading and frankly not a neutral point of view and unbalanced to not provide this context. Right now the Koch article is a "philanthropist" coatrack. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- find secondary reliable sources and add claims which are backed by the reliable sources. AFAICT, the cancer philanthropy is without strings and in concert with government research.   That total funding is higher than funding from a single individual - I suspect is true of any subject under the sun.  Your implicit claim that Koch deliberately produces chemicals to give people cancer or the like is a teeny bit far-fetched.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- Koch deliberately produces chemicals and deliberately opposes health-based regulations of those chemicals. You may consider it a "teeny bit far-fetched" but it's a simple fact. The MIT Koch Cancer Institute doesn't study carcinogens at all. Don't worry, they study prostate cancer plenty.


 * Here's a few secondary reliable sources:


 * "When the Environmental Protection Agency announced last November it would update Clean Air Act standards to ban dust particle emissions that reportedly cause 40,000 premature deaths annually, big industries sharpened their knives. . . . Among them is David Koch, chairman of Koch Industries, whose oil subsidiary is being sued by the government for Clean Water Act violations, for a reported $55 million. Although Koch gave $339,000 to federal campaigns in 1995-6, it's only one way he sought influence. He also gives through a tangled web of think tanks, PR agencies, and trade associations, all of which want Congress to gut the Clean Air Act." Mother Jones


 * "For example, at the same time that David Koch has been casting himself as a champion in the fight against cancer, Koch Industries has been lobbying to prevent the E.P.A. from classifying formaldehyde, which the company produces in great quantities, as a “known carcinogen” in humans." New Yorker


 * "One witness at Monday’s subcommittee hearing expressed support for doing away with federal funding altogether–David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute." Democracy Now


 * "As the Cato Institute concludes, the federal government should drop out of education and return the money and power for instructing children to the states and individual communities." Sarasota Herald-Tribune


 * "Instead of debating how much more money taxpayers should funnel into the Department of Education, or what combination of carrots and sticks might tempt government schools out of their lethargy, Congress should simply end federal involvement in education and return the department's budget to the American people in the form of a tax cut." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel


 * "As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day and the liberties enshrined in our founding document, we need to be vigilant on the latest federal encroachments on our rights: President Obama’s EPA and their attempt to use the Clean Water Act to restrict property rights of farmers and ranchers." Great Falls Tribune
 * --The Cunctator (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. But Wikipedia is not to be used for soapboxing. Putting these sources and comments into the philanthropy section would be impermissible WP:SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't notice, this is the talk page. --The Cunctator (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I have been at this for awhile and I do my best to encourage article improvement as the priority in the edits and in my comments. If you have specific recommendations or comments as to article improvement (or my participation in the project) please speak up. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I promise you, I've been at this for a while longer. I appreciate your civility. Here's a recommendation - instead of obstructive wikilawyering, please use your intelligence to figure out how to incorporate this knowledge into the article in a way that you believe is responsible, since my approach was summarily reverted. --The Cunctator (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making the connection, not the sources, even though some (not all) of them are reliable. If you can find a source which makes the connection between his philanthropy and his politics in general, rather than between a specific instance of his philanthropy and a specific instance of his politics, go ahead.  If a source makes only a connection between specific instances, it would need to be reasonably unbiased for the statement to be notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cunctator for digging up the sources and posting them here. Lets continue to work on improving the article--Wuerzele (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

2011 Time 100
The source makes clear that this was the view of liberal activists who learned " Koch foundation money had helped finance a group organizing Tea Party rallies, the world suddenly made sense. Whatever the brothers may have done to advance their vast economic interests in Washington and state capitols, they energized liberals who saw them as the new puppeteers of a resurgent right wing." The material following is clearly not a claim in Time's voice, but an expansion of this statement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article doesn't explicitly state why they were selected for the Time 100.- MrX 14:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the article isn't in Time's voice; the Time 100 is a collection of commissioned essays. The Koch piece is in the voice of Matt Lewis, a conservative journalist, who has defended the Kochs in other venues. --The Cunctator (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted both of you, until we come to a consensual solution. I am against wholesale deletion of the source only because the 2 of you cant agree how to use it. I think the source should be included, because it is a mainstream source that a WP reader will be familiar with, and as likes to point out WP should serve the reader -:). It isn't easy to describe or summarize this essay (I d call it a farce), because the author theatrically slips into different positions describing teh brothers, with yes a clear bent to the right,, ridiculing "liberal activists" and "tender-minded activists"  Agree that the essay doesnt state why Time included the brothers, but we don't have to either.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO the present version is a neutral summary. But who is Ferguson referring to when he said they were "just dumb"? The Kochs or the Tea Partiers? Either way that critical remark is not helpful. The important point is that the Kochs got into the 100 Club.  – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms
Most of the information in this section doesn't appear to be critical at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.197.249 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Real time net worth
Is it possible to automatically change the net worth to whatever it says here http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:realtime or can it only be done manually --88.111.129.157 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it can not be automatically updated when that page changes and there is no need to update the number on the article everytime Forbes updates. -- GB fan 23:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Pronoun clarifying clause after Koch quote regarding Scott Walker
Proposed content:

"In February 2012, during the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, Koch said of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, 'We're helping him, as we should. We've gotten pretty good at this over the years. We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more,' and said that by 'we' he meant Americans for Prosperity."

References:



Bolding added above to illustrate the critical clarifying clause, from the original interview, The deleted content is not editorializing, it is a summary of the source, the original interview of the subject of this article by a journalist. The original interview included clarification; we can include it, too. It's impossible to understand how being less clear could be considered an improvement to the article. It is highly significant to this section of the article, a section on the political advocacy of the subject of this article, in a subsection on the relationship of the subject of this article to Americans for Prosperity, that the subject of this article spoke to a reporter of himself and Americans for Prosperity choosing the pronoun "we." The interview and the quote had significant coverage in multiple independent noteworthy sources, above, including The Nation, The New York Times Magazine, PolitiFact, and the Wisconsin State Journal. All of the sources disambiguate the pronoun. The noteworthiness of the quote is largely that Koch referred to himself and AFP as "we." Of the many possible misinterpretations of "we," admissible by the inadequate summarization of the source, one is that "we" might refer to David and Charles, another David Koch and Scott Walker; any such misinterpretation is totally unnecessary as the original interview was very clear, and we can be equally clear, very simply. Hugh (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Koch was the top initial funder of Americans for Prosperity
Current content: "Koch is Chairman of the Board and gave initial funding to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and to a related advocacy organization, Americans for Prosperity." Proposed addition to the section: "Koch was the top initial funder of the AFP Foundation at $850,000." Reliable source references: The current content is non-neutral in that it grossly understates the situation a described in multiple reliable sources. The noteworthiness of the subject of this article's financial support of Americans for Prosperity is precisely that he was the biggest founding funder. Hugh (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, adding proposed highly relevant, highly noteworthy content and multiple well-formatted reliable source references. Hugh (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

David Koch direct quote regarding his relationship to Americans for Prosperity and Scott Walker
Content and references recently deleted without discussion and without alternative summarization:

"In February 2012, during the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, Koch said of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, 'We're helping him, as we should. We've gotten pretty good at this over the years. We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more,' and said that by 'we' he meant Americans for Prosperity."

References:



The subject of this article's relationship with Americans for Prosperity is a highly significant aspect of this personal political advocacy. Another highly significant aspect of the subject of this article's personal political advocacy is his involvement in Wisconsin, a highly significant political front line. This content is highly noteworthy since interviews with the subject of this article are extremely rare. Here the subject of this article succinctly speaks of his relationship with Americans for Prosperity, and with Scott Walker, very significantly using the pronoun "we." More recently, the relationship between Scott Walker and the subject of this article has added relevance to our readers in the context of the possibility of a presidential campaign.

This content is further noteworthy for its reporting by multiple, highly significant reliable sources, including The New York Times Magazine, The Nation, and the Wisconsin State Journal, the newspaper of record for Wisconsin state politics. In fact, the coverage of this quote is sufficiently widespread that it takes on a signficance over and above the nominal content of the quote. Inclusion of this extremely noteworthy, first-person statement of political advocacy is a noteworthy addition to the political advocacy section and an improvement to this article.

Further, from the perspective of Wikipedia editors, this quote serves as a guidepost for editors that the subject of this article's relationship with Americans for Prosperity, and with Scott Walker, are political activities he was comfortable acknowledging to a reporter, so we editors should not feel any misplaced concern with withholding these relationships from our readers, and so including this widely-reported, unambiguous direct quote has a much-needed calming effect on editorial collegiality. Hugh (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, content restored. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic
The businessman is viewed more often by an order of magnitude, and is the clear primary topic for those searching for "David Koch". He is also known in the media as "David Koch" (see the sources currently in the article), so his common name would be "David Koch" (even though he appears to use "David H. Koch" formally). Have I missed something or should I start a move request? I'd do it boldly but want to make sure I'm not missing something. – czar   06:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * David H. Koch (traffic): 80k
 * David Koch (television presenter) (traffic): 9k
 * David Koch (Australian politician) (traffic): 0.3k
 * Just what do you have in mind? The existing article title seems work quite well. – S. Rich (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * David Koch should at least redirect here with a hatnote pointing to the dab page. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support David Koch redirect here, with hatnote to dab page; but better would be a move of David H. Koch to David Koch, with a hat to dab. This is by far the most prominent David Koch in RS, the clear primary target, and David H. is formal, David Koch is most common. Thanks for your note. Hugh (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2015
Please remove "philanthropist" from his title. Spending money to buy elections, to control education, and to promote racism is not what philanthropists do.

24.147.143.46 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. Koch's philanthropy is well-documented by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote your point of view. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

– There seems to be tentative support for at least redirecting David Koch here as primary topic. Businessman, 88,340; TV presenter, 7,271; politician 254. The middle initial for his brother has already been removed, and name preference for this Koch brother is comparable. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * David H. Koch → David Koch
 * David Koch → David Koch (disambiguation)
 * Strong oppose he has his initial splattered over a hell of a lot of things he has, like his foundation, his official Kock biography, his charitable endeavors, etc. You haven't provided evidence the proposed name is the most common version. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From these randomly selected articles you'll see that none of them refer to him as "David H. Koch."     . Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems to be the most common name, and either way, the businessman is the primary topic of the name "David Koch" by the evidence.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on David Koch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070226111813/http://www.theadvocates.org:80/celebrities/david-koch.html to http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/david-koch.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111008194753/http://philanthropy.com:80/section/Philanthropy-50/370 to http://philanthropy.com/section/Philanthropy-50/370/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100402101312/http://www.portfolio.com:80/executives/features/2008/10/15/Profile-of-Billionaire-David-Koch/index3.html to http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2008/10/15/Profile-of-Billionaire-David-Koch/index3.html#ixzz0wPpzCWnj
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141208052702/http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/10/activists_put_heat_on_gbh_to_oust_donor_board_giant to http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/10/activists_put_heat_on_gbh_to_oust_donor_board_giant

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Birthdate
Bill Koch (businessman) also has his birthday listed as May 3 1940. The two men are unrelated. I suspect that the birthdate of David Koch is incorrect. I don't think DK exact birthdate is unknown.Pacomartin (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well they're only unrelated if you consider TWIN BROTHERS to be unrelated.24.96.202.141 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Oligarch?
Mr. Koch and his Brother are Oligarchs.--The SBC Guy (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source? -- GB fan 10:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh Lord. This again? Can we say WP:Duck and strike this? This page has been subjected to sock puppets for forever. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Artificial neural networks
Some people want to press Mr. David Koch to fund an artificial neural networks research. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4113:B100:521:DD0:BDD1:7C5E (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Koch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808232251/http://hurun.net/EN/HuList.aspx?nid=26 to http://hurun.net/EN/HuList.aspx?nid=26
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103024037/http://www.influenceexplorer.com/individual/koch-david/741672ab1e0a4314be416ce3cfc2afbc to http://www.influenceexplorer.com/individual/koch-david/741672ab1e0a4314be416ce3cfc2afbc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Koch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160419193708/https://iho.asu.edu/people/iho-research-council to https://iho.asu.edu/people/iho-research-council

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Health issues
What are the 2018 health issues? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018
The website pbs.org/wgbh/nova acknowledges contributions to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova via the David H. Koch Fund for Science for 2017 (44), 2016 (43), 2015 (42), 2014 (41), 2013 (40). Shows of Nova acknowledge contributions for 2018 (45).

From :

=== Education === From 1982 to 2013, Koch contributed $18.6 million to WGBH Educational Foundation, including $10 million to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova.

To :

=== Education === From 1982 to 2013, Koch contributed $18.6 million to WGBH Educational Foundation, including $10 million to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ and thanks for being clear in your edit request, as this makes it much faster for us. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

health
the article states: "In 1992, Koch was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He underwent radiation, surgery, and hormone therapy, but the cancer has returned every time." you may want to check/change this around -> the course of treatment is usually: 1. surgery, 2. radiation, 3. hormone therapy. 96.44.94.216 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019
While it is possible he may have had three children (I do not know) neither source 82 nor source 83 seems to include that information. Please consider updating the source. 165.225.38.22 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Found a better one, thanks! - Frood (talk!) 06:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2019
Change picture to non-smiling 97.118.125.54 (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, per WP:WASTEOFTIME William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Cadaverous grin appropriate for a major climate criminal
The skeletal grin in the subject's photo is grimly appropriate for this major climate criminal, and the major malignant impact Koch has had, and will continue to have, on life on planet Earth.

There's more here on his role as a long-ago college basketball player -- and of course philanthropy! -- than there is on his much more historically significant lucratively funded long-term campaign to prevent actions being taken against catastrophic climate change. Way to go on the zero credibility front there, wikipedia.

Charlie Lomax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Lomax (talk • contribs) 02:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Lomax
Charlie Lomax (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This quote is about the company, rather than the person, moreover the issues raised here are covered in the article (NB the second paragraph of the lede).--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
There is nothing wrong with criticism, but Bill Maher's remark is just a rant with no content. So what if Maher is "glad he's dead?" Where is the conversation? I will accept a criticism on this page that is thoughtful and not just insulting. Why do you want an encyclopedia quoting a statement that says "I hope the end was painful?" That is not criticism. Its just plain mean, and promotes hatred. If you want to say something about a disagreement about policies or opinions, do so. But not like this. Thank you. Dennyneanderthal (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The content and context is there though. It's explicit in it's reference to the Koch's role as funders of climate change denial. it's not about what the rehetorical 'you' wants to say. There are plenty of mean things on wikipedia. Bledwith (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant if the "content and context" is there. We are trying to create an encyclopedia with a NPOV. We are supposed to "stick to the facts." If I had my way the entire sentence would be removed. Really, who cares what Bill Maher has to say about Koch or climate change. You should find a quote from an expert on climate change who has criticized the policies of the Koch brothers. That is true "content and context." Bill Maher is just a commentator, and not an expert on climate change. I am willing to compromise and leave out "I hope he died painfully." That is plain ridiculous. Also, there might be lots of mean stuff on Wikipedia, but that is not proof that "mean stuff" belongs here. And just because there is a source does not make it appropriate either. thanks for listening.Dennyneanderthal (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That not what WP:NPOV is about. It isn't sanitising criticism, even if the language is immoderate. Bill Maher is a notable commentator with a wide reach and public voice and platform. He's undeniably partisan but that shouldn't be surprising in a criticism section. Bledwith (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I really dont understand you, and I am trying, really. Fine, Maher is a respected commentator, and I guess a lot of people care about his criticism. But his criticism begins and ends with ""He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades." I am willing to let this stay on the page, even though we dont even know if this is even true, we only have Maher's word on this, which is why I dont think this is valid criticism. But lets say we leave this statement, how is "I'm glad he's dead" relevant to this? It says more about Maher than it does about Koch. And "I hope the end was painful"? Really? That is not criticism. How is it criticism? Can you show me similar statements on other articles which are considered appropriate? If you can do that, maybe you will convince me. But from my perspective, this is just the ranting of a hateful, bombastic media guy trying to excite others to feel hatred, instead of thinking about the facts. Dennyneanderthal (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't just have Maher's word on Koch's funding of Climate Change denial, there's extensive coverage of that, and he funded the Cato Institute for heaven's sake. And, while there's no point appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFF,since you asked, here you go for more "I'm glad he's dead' criticism - Assassination of George Tiller Bledwith (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If the issue you want is denial, then find decent sources for that; Maher isn't a good source. As for his rudeness, that belongs on his page perhaps under "examples of M's incivility" but I don't think it adds much here. Other than indicating that some people really really didn't link Koch William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the issue I think should be covered here is the very vehemence of Maher's criticism. That Koch inspired that level of incivility from a public figure is striking, and indicative of the widespread dislike of him.
 * Bill Maher is a comedian, and a hyperbolic one at that. Nothing about the content added related to Maher quote is encyclopedic. Reads a lot more like a tabloid headline then something that should be included on a WP BLP. Comatmebro (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As for funding of climate change denial, that probably should be covered in more depth too, there are enough good sources out there.Bledwith (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the funding of climate change denial section. The Guardian source is a one-sided opinion piece that never adequately connects the think tanks it's pointing fingers at with actual climate change. For the second part of the section, the allegations are unverified and not encyclopedic in any way. This is a BLP about David Koch, not a place to WP:COATRACK dissatisfaction think tanks and climate change. Comatmebro (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This sesction is about criticism of Koch, and criticism of him as a climate change denier is extensive and well sourced.

There seems to be a consensus building for at least removing at least the extensive detail on Maher's criticism, so I see that should probably be done.Bledwith (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with excluding the Maher quote. We have way betetr sources for his funding of climate change denial and the rest. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "If we can't get him on this, let's get him on that." Really seems like a lot of good-faith editing going on here guys...keep it up. Comatmebro (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a criticism section. It's necessarily POV in some respect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bledwith (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of Bill Maher's churlish insult fails WP:UNDUE. I have removed it. Unless positive comments made about Koch after his passing are also included, the inclusion of the churlish insult also fails WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. The encyclopedia is not a vehicle for the recitation of churlish insults directed at dead people who cannot defend themselves. This is a ridiculous discussion. We should not have to be having this discussion. SunCrow (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it may be churlish and it may be uncivil, but I don't think that you understand what Either WP:NPOV or− WP:BALANCE are actually about. it certainly isn't that a negative comment should be balanced by a glowing positive one. Bledwith (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I understand both policies quite well, and this sentence violates them. SunCrow (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I happen to think it belongs, but I'd also say that when the article is in better shape it won't have a Criticism section. They, by their existence, violate NPOV. I've tagged the article accordingly. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have gotten rid of the criticism and recognition section and moved relevant material from that section to other places in the article. SunCrow (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive editing of known problem article
Previously sanctioned editor William M. Connolley reverted my edit of yesterday as allegedly "deceptive". I disagree, and regret that this bullying may be inviting another sanction. I made my edit after listening to the full-length audio version of Mayer's book. I don't have access to a hard copy right now, nor do I take up his challenge to a flame war, but was able to cite check the awards won by that book (probably the one referred to in the early September note on this page). They include being one of the 10 best books of 2016 according to the New York Times, as well as winning the New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein award in 2017, as well as becoming a finalist for several other awards. Admittedly, they are in the Jane Mayer wikipedia article rather than the still-skeletal Dark Money (book) article. I chose not to duplicate them in footnotes for brevity's sake since I was really only changing one paragraph in the Koch article. Several editors have noted the severe problems in this David Koch article, which contrary to the Jane Mayer article (for example) seems basically a puff piece. My edits both tightened what may be the only paragraph in the current article criticizing Koch, partially explained the link between the two cited investigative journalists (while trimming the puff of the less-acclaimed one) and updated its recurrent use of a near decade old minor periodical article rather than the award-winning book.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You made this edit with a summary that implied you only changed wikilinks. And the content used POV terms like "concealed" and "exploded". Maybe you should try again with both neutral language and a more concrete summary. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Though I understand you're a lot more familiar with wikipedia, I dare quibble that I never claimed to change wikilinks, but added an admittedly long sentence with three additional wikilinks, plus revised a couple of nearby sentences to make it fit. The word "concealed" is necessary to explain dark money, and the word "exploded" is commonly used to explain the dramatic rise of such spending, rather than IMHO a POV violation. Of course, I would appreciate your suggestions as to a better characterization of my edit, or other terms to substitute, but please note that if I had looked at the near flame war about a single climate change sentence on this talk page before editing, I probably would have stayed away, which I submit isn't what wikipedia's about.
 * The Connolly reversion, in addition to being rude, seemed to accuse me of promoting a book. I have no interest in the Mayer book other than having listened to the full version, but its absence from the article before my reverted edit is quite unlike the corresponding article from another acclaimed audiobook to which I recently listened, Ron Chernow's about John D. Rockefeller (GA-class). I write because of my concern about the poor state of the current article, and the odd justifications for reverting productive edits such as mine. IMHO, the wikilink to (and article about) the Koch brothers' political activities don't justify the article's current unneutral or degraded state. The Mayer book documents his litigation history (including criminal matters), as well as suppression of contrary speech (somewhat like Harvey Weinstein, now a B-class article). From what I remember of the audiobook, one of the Koch brothers commissioned a bio or business history by a GMU professor, but kept it private, which was a theme about Koch in Mayer's book. Image-management is rarely illegal and re-labeling advertising as philanthropy may well be a modern trend. However, especially now that he's dead, wikipedia should tend to reflect the judgment of history. As others have also noted, this article's nowhere near balanced between business, politics and charity; even its C class rating seems generous. Perhaps my note here will help someone who has the time and stomach for controversy to get it into shape. Other somewhat checkered tycoon philanthropists Andrew Carnegie (GA delisted) and Bill Gates (GA), have much more balanced articles. Even the article on Jay Gould (B-class) is light-years better.Jweaver28 (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Lede rfc
Should the lede include mention of David Koch's role in dark money funding of climate change denial? Guy (Help!) 19:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Support, as proposer. It's the entire reason for the relentless addition of grave dancing which we have to keep reverting. The fact it was not in there before he died is irrelevant: firstly because it probably should have been and secondly because it is a primery focus of large amounts of coverage since his death so regardless of the status months ago it is well past passing WP:DUE. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Addendum: BBC's The Last Word covered this, and discussed it even int he context of a relatively short piece. It seems to be considered highly significant among reality-based sources. Can't speak to Fox etc. obviously. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support though you might have more luck if you call it skepticism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bledwith (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No it shouldn't, and neither should the Bill Maher content that is continually being re-added along with the climate info. There is an entire WP dedicated to political activities of the Koch brothers... Seems a lot more appropriate to elaborate on the subject over there than slap "dark money" allegations in the lead of a WP:BLP. WP:MOS says "When a subject dies, the lead need not be radically reworked." The recent death shouldn't be some sort of opening for a drive-by WP:POV push. Comatmebro</b> (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Yes it should be in the lead as it was a major back ground and source of support from him. He is well known for it and its well referenced. His "philanthropy" was at best self serving yet its displayed in the lead and no one seems to be fighting that. His activism in politics, support of removing environmental regulations, and denial of climate change was more out spoken and more referenced. ContentEditman (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because someone is "well known" for something doesn't mean it's a matter of fact. Just because something is well-sourced doesn't mean it's a matter of fact. We're trying to abide by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV here...these are allegations that don't belong in the lead section whatsoever. <b style="color: green;">Comatmebro</b> (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not allegations but something that has been proven and supported by many reliable references. Do you have reliable references that say other wise? ContentEditman (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the assertion that they are well proven is dubious. They are well-repeated, but generally source to a small set of motivated refs. And there's something contradictory about asserting "Dark Money" which is supposed to be anonymous William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tentative support. WP:LIBERTY/WP:POLITICS member I think we should go with the proposal I have outlined below most specifically. It only summarizes the main body which includes the criticism he has faced for using Dark Money and funding climate change denialism. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose similarly to how we don't have it in George Soros's article. Let's try to pretend Wikipedia is balanced. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What does George Soros have to do with David Koch? That line of thought is exactly what WP:COATRACK covers. In this case the issues brought up are well referenced and he, and even his brother, are well known for. If you want to make a case for edits at other pages then do so at those pages please. ContentEditman (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Soros has an entire paragraph in the lead devoted to his political donations, including controversies and criticism related to them; whereas Koch, who is even more infamous, has a bare, brief sentence buried under his own vastly-less-notable political run, with no mention of the specific donations or the massive controversy surrounding them. I'm not sure what you're thinking of making this comparison - while each article is different, comparison to Soros' lead implies that the coverage here needs to be massively increased. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * there is no mention of dark money. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide mainstream sources showing that Soros uses dark money vehicles to obscure his political donations? There's at least one entire book about Kochs's. Guy (help!) 21:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as a major part of his notability and as part of an expansion to a paragraph devoted solely to his use of money for political advocacy, although we should also elaborate in the body (which doesn't currently devote enough text to it.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think David's philanthropy was exclusively "self-serving," save in the narrow sense that research on prostate cancer may have extended his life. He gave money to PBS through his Foundation for Science, and they may have laid off him a bit as a result, but I think he generally had good instincts there. I think he was a very complicated person and to fail to discuss his influence on the suppression of analysis and discourse upon global warming would be doing a great disservice to Wikipedia readers. I always presumed he was a restraining influence on the worst excesses on his brother Charles, but I have no actual evidence of same. Their sponsorship of global warming denialism which they essentially turned into a religion was, in the opinion of the 97% of the world's scientists who disagreed with the two, nothing less than genocidal. He supported paleontology at the same time he facilitated the anti-evolutionist control of the Kansas State Board of Education. He supported the efforts of major crackpots such as Art Robinson. I was very disappointed to learn here that he essentially approved of the assassination of George Tiller. Activist (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - David Koch is undoubtedly known for his influence in US politics, which is already covered in the lead, but mention of his “role” in climate change is grossly WP:UNDUE. That is not what he is most known for to most people, that’s an opinion from his critics, and certainly has no place in the lead.
 * It should also be noted that he gave over a billion dollars to philanthropic causes including medical research, cures to cancer, medical centers, educational institutions, arts and cultural centers, and public policy centers (all of which is easy to find, and if you live in New York, you see his name all over the place), so describing his philanthropy as "self serving" as has been done multiple times in this RfC seems to come from a place of hostility towards the subject of this page. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 16:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He is much more well known for his politically given ideals, much more so then his so called philanthropic causes. That and his philanthropic givings also fall into the political arena as well. Many of his donations came with strings that the money had to go toward hiring only certain similarly minded people, funding research to support his political beliefs, did not donate heavily to medical research till he was diagnosed with cancer, etc... So yes those are very much self serving and well referenced. ContentEditman (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree - he is equally known as a philanthropist and political activist. It is inaccurate to generalize his philanthropy into a single category "self serving". That is an opinion. His experience with cancer AND near-death accident from a plane crash is what encouraged him to support medical research. What about his contributions to criminal justice reform, performing arts, museums, and public television? Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 19:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - from my perspective the simplest way to deal with this is keep it out of the lead. This kind of language is certainly opinionated from an objective stance. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be out of the article as a whole, but certainly out of the lead. Criticism sections exist for a reason. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you find mainstream obituaries that don't prominently disucss his involvement with funding the Tea Party and climate change denial? Obits are a strong indicator of how someone is viewed on balance. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I stumbled across this after the news and took notice of the debate. Koch is definitely notable for his political donations. However, labeling it 'dark money' doesn't sound very neutral, and I would say that most people don't associate the subject with climate change strictly, but politics more broadly. It is covered elsewhere in the article and if the subject needs to be elaborated or expanded then that is where such content should go. It feels inappropriate to have contentious material in the lede. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's the technical term for it. Citizens United created a way for billionaires to finance political cmapaigns with complete anonymity, Jane Mayer's book popularised the term, and that's pretty much how it's described everywhere now. What term would you use? And is that temr your only objection to adding his concealed funding of climate change denialism to the lede? Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not have any beef with the term. I am opposed to including a contentious entry in the lede. Also, dark money is not even mentioned in the body. If there is extensive coverage of this issue then expand it there first instead of adding new information in the article's introduction. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. So you think we should leave out the thing for which he was known in his lifetime and which was the dominant theme of all the mainstream obituaries, because you think it's "contentious". It's a novel interpretation of WP:NPOV, I grant you. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy (Help!), that is not what Darwin Naz said. Argue your position honestly. SunCrow (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the technical term for it - I think you mean "populist term"; a way for billionaires to finance political cmapaigns with complete anonymity - can you see the problem with that? William M. Connolley (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should cover the most important information in the article. That isn't it. Additionally, oppose the proposed non-NPOV language in the body. Much better would be something along the lines of "opposition to cap-and-trade legislation", or other references to what he did specifically, and to avoid the phrase "dark money".
 * Support per the mainstream sources which mention it prominently. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per the reasons ably set forth above by <b style="color: green;">Comatmebro</b>, Meatsgains, AdventurousSquirrel, and Darwin Naz. SunCrow (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the lead, at least for now, per Darwin Naz and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Your argument that it's in the obits is suggestive of its importance, so beefing it up in the body should have been the first step; once it's there per WP:DUEWEIGHT, then come back and adjust the lead to summarize proportionately. Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Current second paragraph


 * Proposed second paragraph


 * References

I propose the following change as worded to most accurately summarize the body of the article. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't agree to this one, since it still puts his political donations (by far the most notable thing about him) under his completely-insignificant VP run and his own personal beliefs. The lead needs a paragraph that starts with donations, either by splitting this one or reordering it.  Also, "donated to political advocacy groups" strikes me as slightly misleading in this context, since he did far more than that.  We ought to at least mention something along the lines of the The Koch Network in the lead and body; while we have a dedicated article to go into more detail on it, it's also David Koch's main claim to fame and the most notable thing about him, so it needs prominent mention in his own article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC) --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree his donations in politics, such as dark money/anti-climate change/etc..., is more well known and should be much larger in the lead and expanded in the body. Yet his self serving philanthropy has almost 1/4 of the lead, which he is not well known for. His political activism is much more well referenced and he and his brother are much more well known for. ContentEditman (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything about the proposed language is fine with me except the last sentence, which I object to on WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL grounds. SunCrow (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Koch has faced criticism for his political spending." That's as neutral as it gets. Cite it, improve the criticism section, elaborate on the page that this content is better suited for (The Koch Network). <b style="color: green;">Comatmebro</b> (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: green;">Comatmebro</b>, please take another look. The last sentence proposed above reads as follows: "Koch has faced criticism for helping to finance climate change denial and his use of dark money". I maintain my objections on WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL grounds. SunCrow (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Right...and I'm proposing that the last sentence be changed to "Koch has faced criticism for his political spending." What do I need to take another look at? <b style="color: green;">Comatmebro</b> (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: green;">Comatmebro</b>, I wasn't clear as to what you meant. I have no objection to your proposal. SunCrow (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)