Talk:Koch Brothers Exposed

NPOV?
Does this article accurately reflect the non-negotiable Wiki policy of WP:NPOV? Does it make any contentious claims about living persons per WP:BLP? Collect (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

KochFacts.com

 * Undid revision 634292812 by Viriditas (talk)been discussed before - absolutely RS for this material

Where has this been discussed, Collect? I don't see anything on this talk page, and you added the material back into this article. Perhaps you will now discuss how it meets our policies and guidelines instead of claiming it's already been discussed? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive187, Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers, Koch_Industries,  etc.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * nowhere in those links you provided up above, neither in the BLP discussion nor in the political activities talk page, can I find any relevant discussion about the reliability of kochfacts.com. Furthermore, as you already know, the reliability of a source may change depending on how it is used, so pointing me to other discussions (which don't even touch upon the topic) is quite disingenuous on your part, as you are perfectly aware that the source in question might be reliable as a self-published source in the two articles you cite above (Political activities of the Koch brothers and Koch Industries). Per WP:SELFPUB, the link in this article and its supporting material violates WP:V.  To recap, I've questioned the reliability of the source you've added to this article per the above.  In response, you have ignored the burden to explain its reliability.  Do I need to remove the material again, or will you finally address your burden? Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anyone could rationally assert that statements in KochFacts.com were not clearly made by the Koch brothers. On the other hand, some of the film's accusations are being stated as if they were proved facts, which clearly violates WP:BLP.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, it's titled "Allegations", so perhaps it's not a WP:BLP violation. Still, as titles and subtitles are not considered "reliable" even in otherwise reliable sources, it's not really that clear.  I would think that each statement needs a separate "the film alleges", but there might be a compromise possible with the text "The film alleges:", with bullet points.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To summarize, KochFacts is being used as a source for statements by (and hence about) the Koch brothers. The film is also used a source for statements about the Koch brothers, without (IMO) adequate attribution.  If you want to challenge it at WP:RSN, go ahead.  However, I don't see where it's been discussed before. They could possibly be WP:BLP violations, as they do make statements about Greenwald, but they are clearly labeled as the Kochs' opinions.  Potentially, arguments about weight or relevance might have some value, but not WP:BLP.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is about a documentary film. It is debatable whether KochFacts can be used as a self-published source in this article since  KochFacts as a source is clearly a) unduly self-serving ("having concern for one's own welfare and interests before those of others"); and it makes claims about third parties and events not directly related ("they call Robert Greenwald “maliciously false and misleading...we are certain his video about Koch will contain outright lies, distortions of our true record, and misstatements of fact...the film is ”a desperate attempt by an obscure video maker to make money off of the orchestrated partisan political attacks against Koch.”)  So the source fails WP:SELFPUB on first glance.  If the criticism is notable, then we should be able to find it in independent sources such as vanden Heuvel 2012, which is already in the article.  The addition of KochFacts violates our policies and our guidelines and should be removed. It is not a reliable source nor does it concern itself with the film, and in fact, attacks the person responsible for the film, criticizes elements of the film prior to its release, and comments on a third-party (orchestrated partisan political attacks).  This source should be removed immediately as unreliable.  Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to write articles. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted, the other discussions do not reach the same results you assert. I suggest in the principle of collegial editing that you accept that the other editors may, in fact, be correct.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . I cannot find a discussion of KochFacts.com in a context which will relate to this in your links above.   If you were correct, then we could not include the statements from KochFacts unless reported in a third-party source, say a film review.  I would be surprised if we could not find such references.  Furthermore, we are required to redact any statement the film makes, even in the filmmaker's voice, unless a third-party source reports it, and, even then, in the interest of balance, we should probably minimize those statements.  Wikipedia does not recognize the right of reply (apparently, Deadline does; see below), but fairness (and WP:BLP) require that we apply the same rules to libelous statements the film makes and potentially libelous statements the film's target makes.  Per WP:BLP, we should not include allegations the film makes unless reported in a reliable third-party source.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Deadline reference reports the comments from KochFacts about Greenwald. If we can use it to report what the film says about the Kochs, we can use it to report what the Kochs say about the filmmaker.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your version uses the Deadline reference as a source for the assertion that "Kochfacts" says "Greenwald is maliciously false and misleading". But the Deadline source doesn't say anything at all about "Kochfacts".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why we need both sources; KochFacts for the actual attribution, and Deadline for the fact that it was said. If you prefer, you can rewrite the article to ignore KochFacts, only quoting Deadline, but there is no WP:V violation for the statement if both sources are used.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Koch Brothers Exposed (film). 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/20141118003212/http://www.bravenewfilms.org/koch2014 to http://www.bravenewfilms.org/koch2014
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222190049/http://www.politicolnews.com/koch-brothers-exposed-review/ to http://www.politicolnews.com/koch-brothers-exposed-review/

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) 08:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)