Talk:Fred C. Koch/Archives/2015

Pamphlet
Pamphlet: A pamphlet is an unbound booklet (that is, without a hard cover or binding). No sources on binding for A Business Man Looks at Communism.--Polmandc (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Nice digs, looks like it might be hard to heat, though. Al Jazeera, who 1st obtained the pamphlet and published it online called it a "pamphlet" and "manifesto." Elevating it to "book" is OR. Hugh (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Koch's motivation in founding the John Birch Society
The subject of this article's motivation in founding the John Birch Society is not in any supplied reference. Without clear sourcing, preferably a first person account or direct Koch quote, it is WP:OR for us to speculate. The society has multiple complex tenets and it is inappropriate for us to select one as Koch's motive. The best we can do given the currently available sources is to say that Koch was a founding member of the John Birch Society and let the facts speak for themselves. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate weight of content drawn from A Business Man Looks at Communism
In my opinion the content in our article drawn directly from summarizing A Business Man Looks at Communism far exceeds the weight of this document in reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Probably it would be best to restrict our content regarding A Business Man Looks at Communism to a fair, neutral summary of what reliable secondary and tertiary sources have said about it, rather than attempt to read the document ourselves and attempt a fair, neutral summary. If we are to summarize content directly from the primary document in our article, we need to be careful not to cherry-pick the most sensible-sounding content for inclusion, we have to include some of the less sensible content as well. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The content is fair and neutral. However, I will attempt to find secondary sources for support.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 18:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The pamphlet would not be here in our article at all if not for a FOIA from Al Jazeera. We must not leave our readers with the impression that the pamphlet was noteworthy as a popular book title. How the pamphlet came into wide public view is highly relevant context necessary for our readers to understand this paragraph. How the pamphlet came into wide public view is documented in a reliable, secondary source, in contrast with most of this paragraph, which is a paraphrase of a primary source document. Hugh (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't find AlJazeera a RS. Lets discuss. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Capitalismojo, I have restored your reversion of Hugh's edit. 1. If AJAM is not RS, then it should not be used for factual material at all. But your edit left the AJAM citation in place. 1.a. Hugh's edit is a "according to" quotation, which qualifies it. 2. AJAM has been been on Basic Cable for a few years, so it is probably RS overall. (Several of its anchors have prior careers with more mainstream media.) 3. Perhaps this material can be revised with less reliance on the quoted language -- more of a paraphrase. – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to take it all out. I find that AJA is marginally better that RT and for the same reasons. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The content is fair and neutral." The content being drawn from the primary source document is not fair or neutral. The weight of our article's summarization of the content of Koch's pamphlet is disproportionate to its actual significance. It was not a landmark cogent analysis of a political scientist, it was a screed. The extent of our direct summarization give it far too much credit. The summarization is non-neutral in favoring Koch's more sensible sounding claims, while excluding the less sensible. Hugh (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "I will attempt to find secondary sources for support. " If we were to embrace a discipline of being guided by what secondary sources have to say about the content of the pamphlet, it seems to me we would have to include that Koch included his sitting President, Eisenhower, as part of the Communist conspiracy in America, because Al Jazeera caught that; alternatively, if we are to permit ourselves drawing content from the primary document beyond what is covered in secondary sources, as you have extensively, we could go on to say that Koch also included Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon in the Communist conspiracy. Hugh (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those cunning commies! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "I will attempt to find secondary sources for support." I count twelve (12) sentences summarizing directly from the primary source document, with no secondary source support for noteworthiness. This is too much. This primary document is noteworthy as a fringy screed written by the scion of a powerful family, but it is presented here as if it were a New York Times non-fiction best seller. Hugh (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Content deleted: "'Koch wrote in the pamphlet that pro-Communist decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States had compromised the internal security of the U.S. Koch wrote in the pamphlet that Communists probably had access to all messages in and out of the Pentagon since unions installed the communications lines.'" May I humbly remark that in trimming this content, summarizing the content of Koch's manifesto, you seem to have somewhat pointedly started with some of Koch's fringier, zanier claims, thereby making our coverage even less fair and neutral. In for a penny, in for a pound. If we are to devote a long paragraph to the content of Koch's manifesto, we need to be even handed about it. Let's be clear with each other, Koch's manifesto is not serious political analysis, WP:FRINGE applies here and constrains our coverage. Kindly self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I started with the material ref'd only to the pamphlet. I left in material that was dual ref'd. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate to remove improperly ref'd material, and I have done that. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I remarked, seems a tad odd to me you that of the dozen or so sentences with only primary doc support, you embraced your commitment to secondary sources, only as pertains to some of Koch's fringiest claims. Please reply. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please respond to my observation that your trims may be biased toward fringe. I think we agree the content in this article drawn from summarizing one primary document, with no secondary source support, is too heavy. However, whatever weight we settle on, I would hope you would agree we have an obligation to balance the sensible with the not so much. It is not Wikipedia's job to clean up Koch's screed, is it? Your thoughts? Hugh (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Content deleted: "In 2014, the pamphlet and letters were published online by Al Jazeera America after their Freedom of Information Act request for Koch's FBI files."Reference:""May I humbly remark that in deleting this content from this long paragraph summarizing the content of Koch's manifesto, you have deleted key context necessary for our readers to understand the paragraph, and deleted one of the few sentences in this paragraph with support from secondary sources. The subject of every sentence in an article need not be the subject of the article. We are expected to provide context sufficient that our readers can understand our article. Of course we do not want to leave our readers with the impression that Koch's screed was a New York Times non-fiction best seller. That the only reason we are discussing this pamphlet at all in this article is because of investigative journalism is of course key context in understanding the long section summarizing the content of the pamphlet. Your deletion of this content makes our coverage of this pamphlet less neutral and is not an improvement. Kindly self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Be clear. You started this section with reasonable concerns as to refs and sources. I have removed the material. What precisely do you wish to include ref'd to which RS? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Be clear? Immediately above please find some specific content you deleted, and its ref, and that I specifically requested you self-revert. How can I be more clear? I will try bold for emphasis. Hugh (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Th fact that Al Jazeera made an open records request is of no use to the reader. None. FOIA is a standard tool of journalists, it is unexceptional. It adds nothing to the biography article of the subject. Would we add a line in an FDR article if a reporter FOIA'd material on FDR? No. This inclusion was odd. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on now, brother. You can't be serious. You've got to be kidding. Love the sense of humor! Ha ha! Our article simply cannot convey through omission that Koch penned a romantic memoir of misspent youth behind the Iron Curtain. The ONLY reason we are talking about this at all is that it was discovered in Koch's FBI file and published online. Our readers cannot run down the their local library and check it out. It is not Wikipedia's job to rehabilitate Koch's literary career. Again, your deletion of the well-referenced context of this primary document is not an improvement; kindly self-revert. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He has no literary career. He's an engineer and businessman. He wrote a pamphlet. It apparently made tiny impact then, if secondary sources are any indication. It is undue to have one third of this biography article of a businessman devoted to an unknown pamphlet. Really? I will not self revert, I will not be inlcuding Original Research from primary sources at this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "He has no literary career." Exactly. And it is very important that our article not be read that he did through omission. Hugh (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "He wrote a pamphlet." That kind of understates events, don't you think? He wrote a pamphlet, he passed it around to people he thought or hoped might be sympathetic, some of whom wrote to the FBI, which is how we got to read it and discuss it in WP article space. Hugh (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Content deleted: "According to Al Jazeera America, 'Koch’s manifesto makes many of the same arguments that Charles and David Koch have levelled in recent years about the direction the country is headed under a president the brothers have accused of being a socialist.'" May I humbly observe that this is your second attempt to delete this content. This content was recently restored by our colleague . This content is discussed here at article talk, above. When you deleted this content, did you perhaps anticipate it might be controversial with one or more of your fellow editors? The reason I ask is that we are asked to seek consensus at talk before edits if we suspect the edits might be controversial. Also, may I humbly ask why the reactions of sons Charles and David's to their father's pamphlet is included, but that of an independent, neutral, reliable source is not? This analysis by Al Jazeera, relating Fred's political awareness to that of his sons, is perhaps the most significant reason justifying our extensive coverage of the pamphlet in this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, you don't have to ping here. It's on my watch page. Second, the opinion of Al Jazeera is not neutral or reliable. Third, The inclusion of Original Research is to be avoided. Fourth, the son's remarks about their father's life were published in mainstream RS by mainstream journalists. If they weren't/aren't we should remove them. Fifth, the pamphlet is insignificant and coverage of it should probably be minimal (if any). Capitalismojo (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As you know, our colleague and I disagree with you about the neutrality and reliability of Al Jazeera, and in any case, may I humbly repeat 's earlier salient point, that the content you deleted was attributed in-text to address concerns of possible bias. And a reliable, secondary source disagrees with your assessment that the pamphlet is insignificant; in fact, the reliable, neutral, secondary source found significant parallels between the politics of the father and the politics of the sons. The pamphlet is significant; however, extended, cherry-picked direct summarizations of a primary source document, unsupported by secondary sources, in inappropriate for our encyclopedia, so thank you for trimming the direct summarization, that is an improvement; however, even now the very brief summarization that remains does not give our readers a taste of just how fringy it is, and so by omission gives a false impression that it might be mostly sensible. We have trimmed our coverage of the content of the pamphlet so far we do not have good context for the Al Jazeera comment. Hugh (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need to spend exceptional time and space in this biography on this pamphlet. This is a biography article. Mentioning the political views are appropriate. Given that he was not a politician or political figure but an engineer and a businessman I find it a WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE to put additional info in this biography article. Why not more info on his building a new technology, why not more of the history of building one of the largest privately owned companies? This page has become a morass of politics, he's not a poltician, this is marginalia. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is well short of page size guidelines, we have plenty of room to be inclusive, thanks. Al Jazeera did not think the pamphlet was marginalia, they thought it was important enough to feature and publish online, and I agree. I agree with Al Jazeera that the pamphlet offers insight into the political activities of the father, and the sons. The subject of this article is not a politician or political figure, but he was politically active, and he raised some boys that were not politician or political figures but were politically active. The article may be deficient in its coverage in areas, but I am sure you do not believe that the rest of the article must be perfected before any additional politics related content can be considered. It is non-neutral for us to pretend this noteworthy, neutral, reliable source, the source that brought the pamphlet to the wider world, does not exist. Kindly self-revert your recent deletion of critical context of how the pamphlet came to be widely known, and Al Jazeera's insightful take on the pamphlet, until we can form consensus on their deletion here on talk. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Striking of comments related to CMD
I struck down my comments from the above thread  Investigative journalism role in wide dissemination of Koch pamphlet  related to CMD as a reliable source. I did not research CMD before citing it as a reliable source and I was merely trying to use the citation as a way to prove a point. A point that clearly fell on deaf ears. After taking the time to review CMD and it's content, I have come to the conclusion that it is not a reliable source, and that is why I have removed my opinion on the matter. My apologies for the mix up. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Investigative journalism role in wide dissemination of Koch pamphlet
Proposed addition to the "Political Views section, bolded for emphasis:

"Koch self-published a 29-page pamphlet 'A Business Man Looks at Communism' relating his experiences in the Soviet Union and what he learned from those who survived Stalin's purges. Dozens of readers of the pamphlet wrote letters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fearing communist takeover, and the FBI started a file on Koch. In 2014, the pamphlet and letters were published online by Al Jazeera America after their Freedom of Information Act request for Koch's FBI files."

Reference:

""

The deletion of the proposed addition removed key context necessary for our readers to understand this paragraph. The subject of every sentence in an article need not be the subject of the article. We are expected to provide context sufficient that our readers can understand our article. Of course we do not want to leave our readers with the impression that Koch's pamphlet was a New York Times non-fiction best seller. Our article cannot convey through omission that Koch penned a romantic memoir of misspent youth behind the Iron Curtain. It is not Wikipedia's job to rehabilitate Koch's literary career. This pamphlet is not available in any local library, it is available because it was published online as a result of investigative journalism. The only reason we are discussing this pamphlet at all in this article is because of investigative journalism, and this background is of course essential context in understanding the pamphlet. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Comments? Hugh (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC) * Comment Regarding the sentence you bolded above - multiple sources discuss the pamphlet written by Fred Koch before Al Jeezer's FIOA request and their article published on July 30th, 2014. Here are a few examples from earlier in the year here and here. And here in 2012. If all of these other RS were able to get a hold of the pamphlet, why does it matter if Al Jezzera FOIA'd the pamphlet? Why does that information belong in Fred Koch's BLP? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wondered why it was deleted. Hugh thank you for pointing out more details about the source. I think this curious detail should definitely be included.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment " Of course we do not want to leave our readers with the impression that Koch's pamphlet was a New York Times non-fiction best seller. Our article cannot convey through omission that Koch penned a romantic memoir of misspent youth behind the Iron Curtain. It is not Wikipedia's job to rehabilitate Koch's literary career." Can you clarify this a bit for me? How does the paragraph as it stands leave readers with an impression that Fred Koch's pamphlet was a NY Times Bestseller? Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 17:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "The only reason we are discussing this pamphlet at all in this article is because of investigative journalism." Aren't we discussing the pamphlet because this is BLP of Fred Koch, and he wrote the pamphlet? Why is investigative journalism relevant to the biography of Fred Koch?  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 17:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your 1st link: A book review. I agree, of course the pamphlet was not totally unknown prior to Al Jazeera's investigative journalism, obviously Koch distributed the pamphlet in the 1960's, and yes a tertiary book-length treatment of the political activities of the Koch family covers the pamphlet. This takes nothing away from the highly significant fact that a particular news organization was the first to obtain the pamphlet and publish it online and bring it to wide public awareness in 2014. Hugh (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your 1st link above is drawn from a tertiary source, “Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America's Most Powerful and Private Dynasty,” a book by Daniel Schulman. You described it as a reliable source. I notice the book is not used as a reference in this article. A book-length treatment of the lives of the Kochs, doesn't it make sense that there is some content in that reliable source worthy of summarization in this article? Would you be interested in collaborating on incorporating relevant content from this source into out project at this and other articles? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just searched our project and it seems that this reliable source is not used as a reference for content anywhere in our project, even though we have about a half dozen some BLPs on members of this family. Doesn't this seem non-neutral or perhaps an oversight to you? Let us work together to draw content from this source and improve our project. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your 2nd link: I'm very impressed that you cited Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy, and commented that it is a reliable source! This is real progress for the neutrality of our project. I look forward to collaborating with you on integrating highly significant content from CMD into our project in this and other articles. Hugh (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your 3rd link: Thank you for citing the Investment Watch blog post "The Koch/Stalin connection: Where their wealth started" and commenting that it is reliable source. I agree the Koch-Stalin connection is currently under-represented in our article with respect to reliable sources. I look forward to collaborating with you on improving our coverage. But that is an issue for a separate thread. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hugh, I asked the following questions in my three comments above, could you please address those questions in a bit more detail instead of commenting on the quality of the sources i used as an example in one of my three comments? I know you hate it when people go off topic in these discussions, so can we keep it related to the material proposed above?
 * Question 1: "Of course we do not want to leave our readers with the impression that Koch's pamphlet was a New York Times non-fiction best seller. Our article cannot convey through omission that Koch penned a romantic memoir of misspent youth behind the Iron Curtain. It is not Wikipedia's job to rehabilitate Koch's literary career." Can you clarify this a bit for me? How do the paragraphs in the Political Views section related to the pamphlet do that as they read right now? The way I read it, he wrote a pamphlet about anti-socialism and his time in Soviet Russia, he published the pamphlet about anti-socialism, people were frightened by it, and the FBI started a file on Fred Koch. What is so "NY Times Bestseller" about how that is currently written?
 * It is non-neutral through omission to deliberately exclude highly noteworthy background of context of the story of the pamphlet. Hugh (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clear then that we disagree here on the noteworthiness of the background context as it pertains to Fred Koch's BLP. You think it is highly relevant as defined by your conclusions and the wikipedia policies that you believe support including the material. You have your opinion, I have mine. We can continue to go back and forth on this, or suggest input from other editors - your call. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 21:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Question 2: You say the only reason we are discussing the pamphlet is because of investigative journalism. Aren't we discussing the pamphlet because this is BLP of Fred Koch, and he wrote the pamphlet? Why is investigative journalism relevant to the biography of Fred Koch? There was detailed information on the pamphlet well before the FOIA request was made, as shown by the RS's i linked to in my earlier comment - it just doesnt seem necessary to me to add sentences about a FIOA request by Al Jazeera on a pamphlet that was released to the public over 50 years ago. I know you laughed at it earlier when User:Capitalismojo stated this but, "The fact that Al Jazeera made an open records request is of no use to the reader. None. FOIA is a standard tool of journalists, it is unexceptional. It adds nothing to the biography article of the subject. Would we add a line in an FDR article if a reporter FOIA'd material on FDR? No. This inclusion was odd." I agree with this rational, and I do not support adding in the information you are proposing. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "as shown by the RS's i linked to" Thank you again for your characterization of Lisa Graves, CMD, and the "Koch-Stalin" blog post as reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Trolling much? Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 21:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "There was detailed information on the pamphlet well before the FOIA request was made" Obtaining the document in full and publishing it online is a highly significant increase in the level of detail available. Hugh (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The document was available to the public before the FOIA - based on my interpretation of the Al Jazeera article the pamphlet was a small component of the "176 pages" of materials FOIA'd by Al Jazeera (the pamphlet was 39 pages of the entire 176, so roughly 20% of the whole FBI file). While the FOIA did increase the level of detail available for Fred Koch's FBI file, it does not provide more detail than was already available from the pamphlet. With that said I find the information you are attempting to add in violation of WP:Notable and not needed for context in the Political Views section of Fred Koch's BLP. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 21:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe Fred Koch is not notable you may nominate the article for deletion. Hugh (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But "al Jazeera" is not relevant to the discussion of Fred Koch. They can be used as a reference, but the FOIA is not at all relevant, either to Koch, to his pamphlet, or to the (modern) discovery of his pamphlet.
 * Relevance, not notability. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I may have misjudged the particular coatracking you are proposing. It's not that Al Jazeera is irrelevant to this article; it's that the "wide dissemination" is irrelevant to this article. It might be appropriate in Al Jazeera.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the conclusion I am coming to as well after reading through the Al Jeezera article one more time. I think i improperly cited the material as WP:NOTE in my comment above. The FOIA by Al Jeezera was for all of the FBI files on Fred Koch, the pamphlet was a fifth of that content, and had already been released to the public. i will strike my citation of WP:NOTE and replace my justification for not believe the proposed content should be added to WP:COATRACK, per  Arthur Rubin's clarification.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 14:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Proportionality of coverage in our articles is proportional to the number of pages in a file, that's a creative interpretation of our due weight policy; please bring that proposal up at policy talk. Hugh (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate my suggestion that this is not a solid addition to this bio article. Who give a rat's patoot that Al Jazeera made a FOIA request. If it (the most common of reporting techniques) is important, that importance is only to Al Jazeera. As a matter of common sense it is of no importance whatsoever in the biography of a man dead decades before Al Jazeera was created. It is impossible to argue otherwise. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it is quite possible to argue otherwise. It is clearly irrational to argue otherwise. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from name calling. Hugh (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

We have two paragraphs and about a dozen some sentences regarding the history and content of the pamphlet and reactions. How the content of the pamphlet came to be widely known is as significant an aspect of the history of the pamphlet as Koch writing it in the first place. That the pamphlet is available to us in full as a result of investigative journalism is significant noteworthy context. The extent of the converge of the context of the pamphlet is recommended by the extent of our coverage of the content of the pamphlet. It is non-neutral by omission to arbitrarily exclude this significant noteworthy context. Hugh (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it must be "noteworthy", as a reliable source has noted it. But, "significant"?  Not a chance.  If there were credible evidence that Fred Koch later tried to hide or disown the pamphlet, then its "discovery" might be significant.  But we have three possibly reliable sources which comment on its contents. If the sources are at all reliable, they must have had access.  Unless you want to credit all three of those sources in the text (which would clearly be undue weight), emphasizing the one that used a common method to obtain a copy and then "publish" it, would be clearly inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to mention Al Jazeera and FOIA. Koch's pamphlet hasn't been a classified document, etc.--Polmandc (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "we have three possibly reliable sources" What three sources are you referring to? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Arthur, could you please clarify, what are the three sources you consider possibly reliable? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Arthur, you mentioned three sources that you thought were relevant to this discussion that that you thought were probably reliable sources, what were those three sources please? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Below, our colleague has disavowed his earlier characterization as a reliable source of Lisa Graves writing for the Center for Media and Democracy. May I respectfully ask, does this influence your assessment, above, that Lisa Graves writing for the Center for Media and Democracy is "possibly" a reliable source? I am struggling to reconcile your assessment here on this talk page with your comments on the Center for Media and Democracy at WP:RSN and elsewhere. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

DRAFT RfC: Background context of Koch pamphlet
This is DRAFT RfC to solicit feedback on the format. Please comment on the format of the RfC and the RfC question. Please DO NOT comment on the substance of the RfC qustion at this time.

RfC question
Should the following content be added to the "Political Views" section?

"Dozens of readers of the pamphlet wrote letters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the FBI started a file on Koch. In 2014, the pamphlet and letters were published online by Al Jazeera America after a Freedom of Information Act request for Koch's FBI files."

Reference
""

Support inclusion

 * 1) The FBI starting a file on the subject of the article is significant and noteworthy WP:DUE.
 * 2) Source is reliable for the proposed content WP:RS.
 * 3) That the wide availability of the pamphlet we currently enjoy is a result of investigative journalism is significant, noteworthy background context for understanding the pamphlet.

Oppose inclusion

 * 1) The FBI starting a file on the subject of the article has minimal relevance. (WP:Relevance)
 * 2) (new point 2 absorbed as point 3.3)
 * 3) Investigative journalism in relation to the pamphlet is irrelevant to the subject of the article, because the only connection is the following chain (WP:relevance, WP:TOPIC, WP:COATRACK)
 * 4) Investigative journalism has little relevance to the (current) "wide availability" of the pamphlet, and that relevance is disputed.
 * 5) The (current) availability of the pamphlet has little relevance to the significance of the pamphlet.
 * 6) The pamphlet has little relevance to the subject.
 * 7) Source is not reliable.  WP:RS

Survey
Please use this subsection to indicate support or opposition to the above question and a provide a brief statement in support of your position. Please do not included threaded comments in this subsection. Please feel free to maintain your position here as the discussion progresses. Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as this article is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you.
 * Support Inclusion because...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
 * Oppose Inclusion since...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed


 * Point 1 against is quite definitely true (I believe the majority of adults had an FBI file at that time), and point 3 is false and falsely stated. The FOIA request and "investigative journalism" had little to do with "wide distribution" of the pamphlet; "wide distribution" of the pamphlet has little relevance to the pamphlet, and the pamphlet has little relevance to Koch.  Little &times; little &times; little = insignificant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no present objection to the RfC except the arguments are incorrectly stated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I corrected Hugh's rewriting of the arguments against. As an aside, although much later, my wife and I both have FBI files.  Hers is amusing, and mine is, at least in part, due to something I mentioned in a security clearance application, which they needed to investigate.   (As I'm neither a public figure nor dead, journalists will probably not have access to the files.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Hugh (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel obligated to comment on this since I removed the material in question. I think the format of the RfC is perfect, Hugh. I recommend that editors coming to the page should focus on the FORMAT of the draft RFC and not the content, so we can keep everything on topic. Great job! Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Shall we proceed with the RfC? Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 20:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reading more about Fred and learning that he distributed thousands of copies of his tome, I'm not as convinced the online publication by Al Jazeera is so critical, sorry. I think the fact from multiple RS ("Sons..." and Al Jazeera) that the letters the pamphlet motivated spurned an FBI file on Fred is more relevant. I think we should include the 1st sentence of the RfC. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "This is DRAFT RfC to solicit feedback on the format. Please comment on the format of the RfC and the RfC question. Please DO NOT comment on the substance of the RfC qustion at this time." Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 15:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, personally I will not be launching this draft RfC. Thank you for your interest and patience. Hugh (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So you submit a draft RfC last week, and requested feedback on the format. I comment on the format per your request (supporting the format). Then, you comment on the content of the RfC in a place YOU specifically asked that content not be discussed (a point that i reiterated to ALL editors before your comment, might i add). I assume you did this in an effort to bait me or other editors into a content dispute on a draft RfC (nice try). Next, instead of moving forward with the RfC THAT YOU DRAFTED, you add the (majority) of the content to the BLP anyways, and then say you don't want to do the RfC after i revert your edits. If you don't see this as disruptive editing, Wikipedia needs to rewrite its guidelines for the policy because you are a flat out nuisance, unwilling to work with other editors that don't have the same point of view as you. I tried to play along by your rules after your ban on AFP, politely, and you slapped me in the face. You're a real class act, guy. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 21:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "I assume you did this in an effort to..." Or you could WP:AGF. I drafted an RfC. I learned more. I decided against it. It wasn't worth it. Yesterday 20:14 you asked if we should go ahead with the RfC and I told you 21:26 I had reconsidered, and you replied, so I thought you understood, see above. I don't think drafting an RfC obligates me to launch it or you not to! Hugh (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, I asked in the draft RfC not to discuss the content, in an attempt to trick you into discussing the content? Wow, that is devious! Hugh (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "your rules" I have no idea what you area talking about. Hugh (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times in other conversations have you stated: "this is not the appropriate place to address that issue," or "please keep comments related to the topic of the conversation." When I said i was "playing by your rules, you specifically asked that the threaded discussion be used to discuss the format of the RfC. You then commented on the content of the RfC (in support of it) in the spot where you specifically asked that content not be brought up. You stated you thought the first sentence of the RfC should be added to the BLP, I asked that you not use the threaded discussion to comment on content, you added the content. You could've handled that many different ways (i.e. start a new post on the talk page stating you weren't moving forward with the RfC and were going to add the content anyways) but you chose to be distruptive, which I truly think warrants another ANI post. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 14:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked if we should proceed with the RfC, and I responded that I did not think so, and in explaining why not, yes, I mentioned some of the content proposed by the RfC as no longer as important as I once thought; is that your issue for g*d's sake? It's right there, a few inches above this. It is good practice in discussions to note areas of agreement. I was trying to agree with you that Al Jazeera's publication of Koch's FBI file online was not super important. Oops, I just did it again, mentioning content from the draft RfC in the draft RfC. I apologize again. Hugh (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "you slapped me in the face" Not true. Hugh (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "you add the (majority) of the content" I added the first of the two sentences of the RfC. Thanks again for not deleting it. Another reason, I did not mention earlier, for not wanting to go ahead with the RfC, is that I found an additional reliable source, "Sons of Wichita," for the first sentence of it, but not for the second sentence. In my judgement the sourcing for the 1st sentence was sufficiently strong as reasonable persons would not require an RfC. That's all. Hugh (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "you add the (majority) of the content to the BLP anyways" I don't think that's true, and I never thought of myself as the "majority" editor of this article. I'm sorry, I did not recognize how important it is to you to perceive yourself as the "majority" editor of this article. I will try to be more sensitive in the future. Why don't you also get a hold of "Sons of Wichita" from your local library and we can work on this article together? You would really enjoy "Sons of Wichita." Hugh (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can't see how side-stepping your own draft RfC is disruptive, it isn't worth us communicating on this topic anymore. To go on and say that the content you added without consent was different that what you proposed in the draft RfC is flat out facetious.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 14:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note regarding recent edits made by HughD
Please see my discussion with this editor in the above draft RfC. Please also note that the recent revert of my edit was for the following sentence added by Hugh to the BLP:
 * Readers of the pamphlet wrote letters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI started a file on Koch.

This content was added to the BLP a few days after the draft RfC was proposed. The draft RfC requested that the following sentence be added to the page:
 * "Dozens of readers of the pamphlet wrote letters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the FBI started a file on Koch. In 2014, the pamphlet and letters were published online by Al Jazeera America after a Freedom of Information Act request for Koch's FBI files."

In his edit summary after reverting my edit today, Hugh noted that the content I removed was "not the same as the proposed content for the RfC draft." The two quotes above are nearly identical. This reach-around seems worthy of an WP:ANI post, but before i do that i was hoping to get other editors feedback on the situation. I was more than willing to go forward with the RfC and supported the format that Hugh put forth, and then he did this. Seems pretty darn disruptive to me. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to provide feedback, thanks for asking. Your edit summary on your deletion of a colleague's well-reference, neutral, noteworthy contribution was "Same content reworded from your outstandingdraft RFC..." but the content was not the same. A RfC let alone a draft RfC does not halt progress on our articles. Any editor is free to boldly edit an article even while an RfC is open let alone while an RfC is being drafted. I do not believe I am under any obligation to launch any RfC. I explained to you yesterday why I did not plan to go ahead with the RfC, and you replied, so I thought you understood. I'm sorry you were so disappointed. If it means that much to you, you are free to launch the RfC. Hugh (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is the content not the same? You added the first of the two sentence from the draft RfC nearly verbatim while other editors (me specifically) were waiting to move forward with the RfC. You are going to need to go into a bit more detail as to how the content you added is different from your draft RfC proposal if you are going to stick to that argument. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 14:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not deleting my most recent article contribution. You've got it, the first of two sentences is not the same as two sentences, that's all. Hugh (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "your draft RfC proposal" I'm sorry I failed you in not launching the RfC. When I hit submit, my contributions, including talk page contributions, and including a draft RfC, belong to the community, including you. Please feel free to launch the RfC. Hugh (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did remove it because I don't think it belongs in the article. If you think it does I suggest submitting an RfC to determine whether or not consensus can be met on the topic. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 14:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand you do not like the contribution. I'm sorry you do not like it. May I ask, do you have a basis in policy or guideline for your removal of noteworthy, verifiable content, well-referenced to multiple reliable sources? What is your understanding of WP:DRNC? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Readers of the pamphlet wrote letters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI started a file on Koch."
 * Hugh (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have a basis in policy or guideline for my removal of the irrelevant, non-important content. My understanding of WP:DRNC is to play nice with other editors when they are trying to make bold edits. An actual RfC for the content you originally posted would've been the best way to avoid all of this back-and-forth. If you are so confident that the information you are putting in is highly relevant, well sourced, and deserves to be in the article, why not ask the rest of the community for their feedback? My opinion is only one of many. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "why not ask the rest of the community for their feedback?" HughD did exactly a month ago, 21 July and I weighed in. I think the sentence should be included.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "why not ask the rest of the community for their feedback?" HughD did exactly a month ago, 21 July and I weighed in. I think the sentence should be included.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FBI starts file on subject of article in response to letters regarding pamphlet
Contended content: "Readers of the pamphlet wrote letters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI started a file on Koch."



That the political views of the subject of this article were such that the FBI initiating a file on the subject of this article is a noteworthy event in the history of the subject of this article, cited in multiple reliable sources, and an entirely due addition to the political views section of this article. Hugh (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments? Hugh (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before, having an FBI file is not significant. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also find the fact that an FBI file was opened on Fred Koch to be insignificant and unnecessary in this section. There is no need to include this sentence if you take the time to read the "Political Views" section as it currently stands. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 21:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this info very interesting to the general readership IN THE CONTEXT of the Koch family and Koch industries. Having an FBI file may not be "noteworthy" per se (I consider "significant" a deliberate weasel term outside its use in statistics), but in the context of the Kochs conservative and tea party leaning it is noteworthy. It shows how the pendulum has swung. The protracted discussion, drawn-out over several sections on this talk page opposing HughD's good faith effort is undue, and suppressing this info comes close to whitewashing.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Notability" is a "term of art" in Wikipedia, referring to (one of the) requirements for an independent article; "we" needed a different term for the (corresponding) requirement for inclusion of facts in an article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)