Talk:Koch network/Archive 2

Add Los Angeles Times source
Add Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power: The billionaire brothers' influence is most visible in the makeup of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where members have vowed to undo restrictions on greenhouse gases. by Tom Hamburger, Kathleen Hennessey and Neela Banerjee Los Angeles Times from February 06, 2011. See connection to Politics of global warming (United States), and current news Portal:Current events/2011 April 6. 99.181.158.254 (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're attempting to use the subtitle to support something. Subtitles may even be worse than titles.  (The LA Times web site produces more than half the content as targeted ads, mostly anti-Koch and sufficient to ban the article under WP:ATTACK if they were actually part of the article.  I missed the actual article, the first time I read this.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You lost me, what are you writing about ... ??? 99.181.155.158 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

LA Times
There seems to be a lot of arguing that since the LA Times is a RS that the preceeding source must be included. I would like to point out the at the RS'ness of the LA Times is not in question. The fact is that this particular article is about the BEST study. The author uses an Ad Hom attack in order to negate the findings of the study by tying the Koch Foundation to the funding of the study, while ignoring that a Bill Gates's Foundation donated a similarly significant amount to the study. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * mmmhm. Paragraph 6: "Muller said Koch and other contributors will have no influence over the results. 'We have no prejudice, no preconception of what we are going to get,' he said, adding that the Koch donation was less than the $188,587 contributed by the federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Muller is a senior scientist."

Berkeley + Koch = 54% of the study's funding; the article mentions the two leading donors. Rd232 talk 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This Richard A. Muller? 99.112.213.121 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bill Gates foundation gave $100,000. Koch foundation gave $150,000.  Unless some of the editors here are willing to say absurdly that Bill Gates doesn't believe in Climate Change I am going to have to call BS on this whole thing.  It is clearly nothing more than political hay, and disgusting that so many WP editors seem more intent on promoting political points of view than actually creating a useful neutral encyclopedia.  Arzel (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The RFC is about using a quote about the Kochs from a respected reporter on a subject she is well familiar with; the quote happens to be from an article about the BEST study (a study which incidentally seems to be supporting the scientific consensus, I believe). How we get from there to complaining about Bill Gates is a bit of a mystery. Rd232 talk 16:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The complaint is that the articles are not about the Kochs, and could only rationally be considered about the Kochs if the reporter were unaware of basic facts about the subject of the article and Bill Gates. The comment about the Kochs is irrelevant to the article, making one wonder what the reporter's motive was in including it.  If Arzel is correct as to motive, the article is not a reliable source for the statement.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The comment about the Kochs is irrelevant to the article..." - a statement so patently ridiculous that you really ought to hang your head in shame. Rd232 talk 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the bloody article. It's a throw-away line, given that Koch's funding of the group is not notable, except in the view of those who think there is no need for verification of the badly maintained temperature data.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Koch's funding of the group is not notable" - the article itself quotes a scientist complaining about that funding source. Are you really keeping a straight face while writing these comments? Rd232 talk 22:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If this claim is widely known or extremely noteworthy, we should have no problem documenting it elsewhere. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LA Times is RS, the information is verifiable, therefore there is no problem, in my view, with using it and mentioning it in the article. What Bill Gates has or hasn't done has no bearing on this question. --Dailycare (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be avoiding the distinction between WP:verifiable (i.e., we can all see the reporter said it), and verifiable (i.e., that the statement's truth or falsity could be determined, given time and resources). It clearly satisfies the first, but not the second.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's in the article as an explicitly attributed opinion of a respected source, the first is all that's required. Wikipedia is not a fact-checking service (WP:OR). Rd232 talk 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. We can report it as an opinion attributed to the journalist, but not as a statement of fact, as was done at one point in this article.  I'm not sure it should be in the article at all, but certainly not as unattributed.
 * More to the point, it should not appear in any other global warming articles, as has been requested by the 99.* anon. It's only relevant here, at most.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the first sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If RS say something, then we include it regardless of whether some editors feel it's "true" or not. --Dailycare (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have the same misconception of WP:V as others have; relevance is also required; some say the relevance of the source to the subject of the article, not just the relevance of the source to the statement and the statement to the subject. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't "disqualify" a source that contains relevant material based on arguments that relate to other material the source contains. The statement is clearly in-scope of this article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if the line is not about the subject of the article, it's less likely to be fact-checked. Sources are not reliable in themselves, but are reliable for certain statements.  I would certainly argue that a throw-away comment on a subject tangential to the subject of the article is less likely to be fact checked, and more likely to be the writer's personal opinion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This gets back to one of my main objections. If a throwaway line in an article from a non-notable reporter within this field (she has is not even quoted in GW articles), is deemed to be forced in because the article is from an RS, then there is no stopping what can be forced into any article.  I could go and add every single statement any single person ever said about the Koch's if WP:V is the only basis for inclusion.  WP:WEIGHT is the deciding factor.  Arzel (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, can you cite a policy to support your argument on "less likely to be fact-checked"? I think the idea behind the concept of RS is that well-known, professional and respected information outlets are just that. Arzel, this isn't just about the LA Times article since other sources have also been provided to similar effect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Add http://www.scientificamerican.com/jun02011/muller-hearing Richard A. Muller recent controversial "preliminary" United States House of Representatives results testimony? 99.181.149.175 (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Is The billionaires bankrolling the Tea Party. an "opinion" or not?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html The billionaires bankrolling the Tea Party, by Frank Rich in the New York Times, August 28, 2010.99.109.124.16 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Frank Rich is an OP-Ed columnist. From the relevant policy Reliable Sources, statements of opinion:

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...'. A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion."

And if you were to ask, no I dont think Rich's opinion is especialy notable here. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Frank Rich is one of the best known columnists writing about politics today. Why would his opinion be non-notable?   Will Beback    talk    22:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I disagree. It's a purported fact, rather than an opinion, so only clearly reliable sources are allowed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's a fact? The only issue here seems to be whether to use the source, and if so how. Rich is a notable commentator. Which fact/opinion in the column are you referring to?   Will Beback    talk    22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Never mind"; I was reading the article title as the text supported. Still, what text is this being used to support?  I agree it's a notable opinion, but Rich has been used to support purported facts in this article, and other articles about the Kochs.  For that purpose, it's not usable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion has wandered from the original question: "is the article an opinion or not?" As an Op-Ed piece the obvious answer is "opinion". ZHurlihee replied that it was a non-notable opinion, and I disagreed about the notability on the general point that the writer is a prominent columnist. Nobody has suggested actually using any part of this.
 * The 99.109 editor likes to post links to new sources as section headings, which I find annoying but it's harmless and potentially helpful. However the ensuing discussions, like this one, have often been unproductive. I suggest that in the future we don't need to respond to the posts. We can just treat them like helpful links to potential sources and either use them or ignore them. Responding to every entry like this, when no text is proposed, is like shadow boxing.   Will Beback    talk    23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is nothing more than a critical opinion from Rich, which is not suprising given his poitical views. WP is not a newspaper, and Rich's attacking opinion violates NPOV and undue weight.  This disturbing trend to automatically include critical attacks within BLP articles really needs to stop.  Arzel (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So your stance is not only that the Koch brothers do not fund right-wing political groups, but that saying so is an attack? For people living on planet earth, this is a well-established, uncontroversial fact. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rich is a left-wing opinion writer trying to degrade the TP movement by saying it is not a grassroots organization because he thinks it is being funded by the Koch's. This type of political mileu has no place in BLP articles since the only purpose is to attack.  Arzel (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to believe that anyone would seriously deny that the Kochs fund right-wing political groups. It is not an attack, it is a simple observation. A more pertinent question is why some are dedicated to mis-characterizing the observation of undeniable facts as an attack. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the relentless attacks from the left it is not suprising that like-minded people would think that this is all they do. Please do not act naive, the subtle arguement being presented, as I stated in my previous comment, is that Rich is trying to degrade the TPM as nothing more than an astroturfed movement paid for by the Koch's et al.  Editors, such as yourself, happily agree and promote those same opinions.  This is a BLP article, leave out the left-wing BLP attacks.  Arzel (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an opinion, so it should only be used to support opinions, not purported facts. There's a different between an opinion (R thinks K is a jerk) and a purported fact (R thinks K is a mass murderer, or R thinks K supports the ACLU).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I inserted it as an opinion, but it was of course immediately removed accompanied by Arzel's meritless 'argument' above. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not very civil of you. I had a valid reason, you just don't like it.  Arzel (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You (Goethean) apparently didn't read my examples. What you wrote was a purported fact, rather than an "opinion".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with these inaccurate descriptions of the difference between fact and opinion.   Will Beback    talk    00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * However, WP:BLP does support that difference between fact and opinion. Furthermore, I have doubts about it being a notable opinion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ''You (Goethean) apparently didn't read my examples. What you wrote was a purported fact, rather than an "opinion".
 * ...and you apparently didn't read the text which I attempted to insert into the article which redundantly called attention to its status as opinion, (but which of course was immediately removed anyways and for no valid reason). &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I don't see the word "opinion" in WP:BLP. Could you please excerpt the text to which you're referring?  Will Beback   talk    03:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Why are we deleting Frank Rich's opinion but restoring Matthew Continetti's?   Will Beback    talk    03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should either keep both or remove both. I think that we should not have either in the article unless a third-party non-opinion source mentions them. I'm going to remove the Continetti material. Drrll (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That works.   Will Beback    talk    10:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: "the nation's most prominent funders"
Margot Roosevelt wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the Koch brothers are "...the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning..." Shall we include this assertion in the article?  Will Beback   talk    06:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

 * This is a unexceptional view which appears in a mainstream source, written by a journalist working within her fields of expertise. It is relevant to the topic of the article and devoting a short sentence to it would not be excess weight. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view, and this seems to qualify.   Will Beback    talk    06:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an exceptional view, but it still doesn't seem WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * NO This is Undue Weight from a non-notable reporter.  Her statement comes in the form of an Ad hominen attack of the BEST study.  The article being used for this statement is unrelated to the Koch's.  Additionally, this is a mallformed RfC and should be removed for the leading nature of Roosevelts notability.  Arzel (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that this supposed notable reporter on Global Warming and/or Green House Gasses is not apparently notable enough to even be cited within the articles here for which she should be most notable. She isn't being used in Global Warming, or the Politics of Global Warming, or the BEST study.  If she is such an expert in this field then why are her views not being used within the articles most suited to her expertise?  Arzel (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No  Pure opinion without factual basis given.   And the author is not notable in the realm of having such opinions.   Collect (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * NoI dont think this is an exceptional view, but i think we should find a source which more directly supports the claim. The LA Times article in question isnt even about the Koch Brothers, they are only mentioned in passing. If this view is unexceptional why not use one of the other articles that confirms that claim, an article that speaks directly to the Kochs' prominence as funders of global warming skepticism. I also think there are wp:undue concerns here, but addressing my concerns, or at least explaining the resistance to using another article would go a long way to establishing some kind of compromise. Bonewah (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I've created a stub (Margot Roosevelt) to help answer the question "who she? and why should we care what she says?". Given her experience and expertise, her opinion that the Kochs are the most prominent of funders is certainly relevant. Remember, this is not a factual claim about the Kochs being the largest or most significant funders or anything like that; it is about prominence. Roosevelt is well-placed to judge that, and her opinion on that is significant. Rd232 talk 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, we claim in the article that they are the opposite of prominent, claiming that they are "so secretive that "they are not just undercover, but underground". Bonewah (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "So secretive" is from a different source, and relates to their support for libertarianism. Rd232 talk 22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added to that article.  Her most famous piece was on Pirates of the Caribbean 2 promoting smoking, as far as I can tell.  Her society background is impeccable.  Collect (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a cute way to demean a respected journalist. It's just your opinion, but it's cute. Rd232 talk 22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * YEs for reasons given by Will Beback. Los Angeles times is a notable source. Kochs are influential and well known. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So any article that mentions the Koch's that is from an RS, even those articles that have nothing to do with the Koch's (like this one) must be included because the Koch's are well known and influential? If that was the case this article would be a book.  Arzel (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, any reliable article or book that mentions the topic of this article may be used as a source for relevant content. This point was raised before and I asked for a citation or a policy or guideline to support Arzel's interpretation, but I don't believe any was ever found.   Will Beback    talk    23:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:sources is a good place to start: "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." In this case, the article is not appropraite to the claims made as the article isnt even about the claims. wp:IRS has this to say "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." (emphasis mine). Also from IRS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Just about everything under wp:COMMON would seem to apply here, but "Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or even that it is explicitly permitted, that doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation." stands out. Again, for the Nth time, if Roosevelts opinion is so widely held, then it should be trivial to find/use another source, or at a minimum explain why you are so resistant to do so. Bonewah (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We haven't decided how to present this assertion, so the quote from wp:sources is irrelevant. If we end up misrepresenting the source then it would be a problem. I don't see anyone saying that the L.A. Times is an unreliable source, so the WP:IRS quotation seems off-topic as well. If that is the assertion then we can take this to the RSN. As for the idea that we need multiple sources for every assertion, that's not in any policy. Overall, the idea that we can only use a book or article if it is specifically about the topic of a WP article is absurd, impractical, and contrary to common practice.    Will Beback    talk    00:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And once again, I answer your questions while you totally ignore mine. Why the insistence on this one particular source? Your refusal to engage in productive dialog is bordering on tendentious Bonewah (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to prove something I've never asserted. I've never said this is a "widely held position". I've said it's unexceptional. There are many sources which discuss the Kochs' funding of opposition to curbs on fossil-fuel burning. This source draws a conclusion that they are the most prominent such funders. That's legitimate for a journalist to do.   Will Beback    talk    00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have stated several times, the LA Times article is not being used to make that conclusion. The author simply made that statement as an ad hominen attack against the BEST study as a way to discredit the study by using the Koch's as boogeymen.  Context is everything.  Arzel (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that comment at all. A reporter of the Los Angeles Times wrote an article, their editors reviewed it, then their publisher printed it. So if we cited the article then the newspaper and the reporter would would be its source. Nobody has proposed adding assertions about the study.    Will Beback    talk    03:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You want to pull an out of context unverifiable quote from an unrelated article by a lergely unknown, non-notable reporter and put it into this article in violation of undue weight.  Arzel (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's verifiable. Go the Times website or to a library which collects it. These objections are getting stranger and stranger. Anyway, I suspect that the involved editors have said enough.    Will Beback    talk   ' 03:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course that she said it is verifiable. I mean the quote itself is unverifiable as a matter of anything other than opinion.  As such what is the point of including the opinion of largely unknown reporter who is not even regarded well enough to have her opinion included in articles here to which by her background they would likely to have been included.  The out-of-context aspect is that the article had nothing to do with the Koch's.  Arzel (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Los Angeles Times is a sufficiently reputable source for an assertion about the identity of most prominent contributors to a cause. If you think that it is not then maybe we should take a side trip to RSN. But in the past the LAT has always been found to be a reliable source. The suggestion that it isn't is a bit absurd.    Will Beback    talk    19:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I will ignore further absurd arguments like that. I have never said that the LAT was not an RS, and it is quite obvious what you are trying to do.  Either respond to my basic concerns or do not respond at all.  Arzel (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

 * Weak support for Qualified Inclusion Explination - Having never heard of the Koch brothers, I did a little research to try and get a feel for thier position on Global Warming. I wasn't able to get many high quality RS here.  Most of what turned up were op-eds, or liberal leaning sources (see below).
 * New York Times (op-ed) "has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers — who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted"
 * Salon (op-ed) "they only fund climate change deniers and people who argue for policies that would make the Kochs richer"
 * The Guardian (op-ed) "from the birth of the Tea Party to undermining unions in Wisconsin, to opposing efforts to curb global warming"
 * CBS (op-ed) "US backers include Koch Industries (best known for its stealth attacks on the federal government, and big spending on climate-change-denial campaigns)"
 * The Montreal Gazette "Koch brothers, the straight talking conservative U.S. billionaires, put up a bunch of money to discredit climate change science in a potentially major way"
 * Given these sources, I agree with Will Beback  that the viewpoint being expressed by Roosevelt in the offered quote is not exceptional, and probably represents a mainstream viewpoint (or perhaps a left-leaning mainstream).
 * Regardless, I really dislike the practice of quoting directly from Op-eds. WP should not be a mouth piece for op-ed columnists.  I think in this situation, the ideal solution would be somekind of weaselly language like this -
 * "A number of commentators have pointed to the Koch family as major contributors to the climate-change-denial movement"
 * We could include cites to some of the pieces above. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Include This is a factual statement from a reliable source. If it is wrong, then editors must find a source that contradicts it.  It is not even controversial.  TFD (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a factual statement, it is an opinion. It is controversial because it implies that Koch's are actively promoting global warming through funding of the BEST study.  Arzel (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Include. Well-sourced. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * comment: preceding editor may not be "uninvolved" per an edit summary specifying that Koch's views are crazy.   Collect (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor hasn't edited the article or commented previously on the talk page. He may be involved in other articles, but that's neither here nor there.   Will Beback    talk    22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this seems to be a opionin of the journalist, not a fact with evidence. As such it shouldnt be included as fact.Obsidi (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Obsidi! &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, According to her bio Roosevelt was the chief environmental writer for the Washington Post and Times before joining the LA Times in the same capacity so her credibility is worthy of mentioning.  The fact that the LA Times is also a respected media source should also enhance her credibility.  the quote however should be placed in the context of the Koch brother's support of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project and further evidence of financial support should also be included. Philreinhart (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's her self-written bio, but otherwise, a sensible statement, although I do not agree. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Philreinhart! &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RFC Comment: Here is another source which states: "A leading climate sceptic patronised by the oil billionaire Koch brothers ...". In other words, they've been caught funding climate sceptics and WP:RS have reported on it. Regardless of the exact wording, I clearly feel that the article content should reflect this in some way. --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article already makes that conclusion. Thanks for providing a good example of why the quote for which the RfC was started.  What makes guardian comment less notable than the Roosevelt comment?  As I had stated earlier in the discussion, many reporters have been making these kinds of ad hominen statement.  It is undue weight to give prominence to any one specific reporter from a historical perspective, especially this one, who is largely unknown. Arzel (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, in fact I realized that a moment after I entered my comment above. However the article now presents a Greenpeace report, with attribution, on this effect and I think using the source we're discussing in this thread we could well go a bit further than that by saying e.g. that they've been described as leading funders of climate-change deniers. That is, in addition to the Greenpeace material. --Dailycare (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are conflating two areas of climate-change denial and the effect of humans on the climate. Furthermore, just becuase the Koch's fund research on the climate doesn't imply that they don't believe the climate is changing.  I think most rational people do believe the climate is changing and has been changing...always.  In anycase this source could never be used for such a statement.  The article has nothing to do with the Koch's and the study is completely indepentdent and has also been majorly funded by Gates.  Additionally, Ad Hom attacks should never be used for factual statements of a BLP nature.  Arzel (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, by "climate change denial" it's usually meant denial of the fact that humans are a major cause of the now ongoing change in the climate and it's also what's under discussion here. Your point that the LA Times article would have "nothing to do" with the Kochs is transparently wrong since the article makes a specific point concerning them, namely that they "are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning". So this source could be used for a statement along the lines of "The Koch brothers are considered to be key funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning", which would sit will in the Greenpeace section. Also the Guardian source mentioned above can be cited. --Dailycare (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that that research was funded by a very bipartisan group. There is no evidence that that study is a climate denial study...unless you think Bill Gates is a Climate Change Denier.  Also, you are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.  The article does make a specific ad hom against the Koch's in order to negate the study, but the article is clearly about the BEST study.  To claim otherwise is to be disingenious.  Arzel (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of both the original topics and further collaborating articles written. LA Times is highly reliable. BelloWello (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the article and see that it was not about the Koch's? Arzel (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read the LA Times article and disagree with your analysis. BelloWello (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you read the article and still think it is about the Koch's? You can disagree with my analysis, but you can't simply make up your own facts.  Arzel (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of both the original topics and further collaborating articles written (as with BelloWello). All of the sources mentioned as "most of what turned up were op-eds, or liberal leaning sources" would be reliable on most any other issue. To reject these sources as "left leaning" would be as un-wiki-like as asking "is it true or not whether the Kochs fund climate-change deniers?" The only aspect of "truth" or "fact" of relevance is whether reliable sources have in fact reported this aspect of their activities. Allreet (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OpEds are not reliable when referring to living persons. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, sensational and not backed by anythign other than the authors opinion. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: this user's second edit, on 13 April, was to remove sourced material about Koch lobbying from Koch Industries. Rd232 talk 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: whats that got to do with this discussion? ZHurlihee (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The point, I believe, was raised on the issue of being an uninvolved editor. Allreet (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
What is the status on

? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what we're discussing in this RfC, though the exact wording hasn't been decided. If you are the same editor as 99.56.120.189, etc., please post your comment in the "involved editors" section, if not then use the other section.   Will Beback    talk    20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Collect - I've posted a note at Talk:Margot Roosevelt concerning your assertion about her most famous article. I'm not sure how that's really relevant here - is the point to impeach her credentials as a journalist?   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it was an attempt to establish her as a journalist.  All else I could find was pretty much Social Register stuff. Collect (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Maybe brush up those search skills, because searching WP is an obvious thing to try. Rd232 talk 01:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that search. I was not sure how to do that.  It does, however, show without much of a doubt that she is not regarded as an expert source for anything within WP.  She is used 6 times total, and the only one that is remotely related is from Hydrolic Fracking.  There is certainly no evidence that she has ever been used as the primary source for anything related to CO2 emmissions.  Her opinion has never been used before, and it is clearly undue weight to use her opinion on such a high profile article which already has several well known entities espressing their opinion.  There are far more notable people in this field whom should be considered for their opinion before she.  Arzel (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that reporters be recognized as experts by Wikipedia in order to use their articles as sources.   Will Beback    talk    03:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is getting very difficult to assume good faith with you. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you say that? I'm acting in good faith here, and haven't given anyone reason to think differently. In any case, if you have a complaint about my editing then this isn't the right place for it. Let's keep out focus on the content.   Will Beback    talk    03:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because one of your primary arguements is that she is an expert in this area and her opinion is notable. Yet you have yet to address the many instances where it is plainly clear that she is not regarded as an expert, and her opinion in this area is not commonly regarded.  If your measurement for inclusion here was used across the board then this article would be littered with quotes from minor reporters.  Basically your approach is anything anyone says about the Koch's must be included, when you know that this is WP:NOT what WP is about.  Arzel (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This Assume good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.143.101 (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arzel, you appear to have misinterpreted my words. I said she's working in her field of expertise. She had been a political reporter (and bureau chief) for many years and is now an award-winning environmental reporter. So politics and the environment are her "beat". I have certainly never asserted that everything said about the Koch's must be included. However I am dismayed by the extent of opposition to this innocuous assertion.   Will Beback    talk    18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I only pointed out the logical conclusion to your statement, please do not take my comments out of context. I am dismayed at these continued attempts to paint the Koch's as some nefarious group hell bent on causing global warming.  If this "innocuous" ad hominen is included you will have opened the floodgates to forced inclusion of every single quote any single reporter has made regarding the Koch's.  I am further dismayed that editors seem to be ignoring one of the core principles of WP:WEIGHT.  Arzel (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The material is well-sourced and neutral. It is not an extraordinary claim requiring an exceptional source. The Koch's are known for making large political contributions and for specifically making contributions that would benefit their industry. It is not an ad hominem attack to state that they are the most prominent opponents to certain kinds of regulations or laws. It's directly relevant to the topic of this article.   Will Beback    talk    23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral? Are you serious?  Again you ignore my comment, and disregard that this statement was an ad hominen attack in order to disregard the BEST study.  Arzel (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is saying they are "promoting global warming". They believe that global warming is a hoax and therefore are lobbying against curbs on CO2 emissions because they believe the emissions are harmless and attempts to curb them are economically damaging.  TFD (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cite for what you "know" about their beliefs? Near as I can figure, the money is going to an independent group which has no such "beliefs" in any case.   But I would loive to see the cite where they say CO2 does nothing.   I do grant that they believe that the benefits do not justify the costs according to their statements, but I do not find the rest of your claim cited anywhere.   Especailly the claim "they believe that global warming is a hoax."   But heck -- maybe you "know" something not in the cites furnished so far to justify that particular claim. Collect (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not WP:KNOW what they believe, but assume good faith and assume they are not lying about their beliefs. TFD (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you glean all this from Ms. Roosevelt's passing comment in the LA times? Or is there, perhaps, another, more in depth article dealing with the Kochs and global warming specifically? Bonewah (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Kochtopus ... in BBC, others
Regarding deletion of The BBC and ABC reported the name the White House had named the Koch Brother's lobbying outfit: "The Kochtopus, a nod to the fact that its tentacles spread well beyond the realms of business." 

Add Kochtopus nickname. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't put reflist into the talk, it will cause weird problems. That term is being used as a deragatory term and a violation of BLP.  Also, the hungrybeast source is not available to most people in the world so unusable.  Also, the BBC did not say that the White House made any such comment, the BBC did say that bloggers on the left have been using it, but that is hardly notable.  Arzel (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is Octopus and Koch "derogatory"?  99.181.134.149 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hungry Beast seems perfectly available, but surely not a reliable source. The BBC source itself is fine, but I'm not sure it's enough to justify inclusion. Rd232 talk 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried the hungry beast link and was told I had to reside in Australia..? Arzel (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh right. That's true of the video content, yes - I didn't see that before. Rd232 talk 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are certainly more: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/examiner-opinion-zone/year-inside-kochtopus, The Economist Title: The Kochtopus http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/08/americas_second_biggest_private_company , the Jane Mayer New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer , etc ... 108.73.113.246 (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To IP99 anyone else. Koch is pronounced Coke.  There has been no shortage of those on the left that would pronounce the name Cock.  The clear corollary here is that Kochtopus would be pronounced like Octopus thus....Cocktopus.  It doesn't take much insight to see what anti-Koch activists are trying to do with their naming convention.  The Koch brothers are being attacked on a pretty consistant basis by the left blogosphere, lets not bring those attacks here.  Arzel (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, and the sources are not anti-Koch activists. If this term is part of the culture, even if some, it should be included in Wikipedia.  To not include the term could show a bias.  99.112.215.30 (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The term encourages a mispronunciation of the name. Because of that, I'd lean to exclude it unless it's so widespread that it's unavoidable, which does not seem to be the case. Rd232 talk 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a pronounciation guide avoid the potential for mispronunciation of adding -topus to Koch? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because then the term doesn't work (doesn't rhyme with "octopus"). Rd232 talk 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to rhyme? Something that doesn't rhyme is Kochblock for Cockblock, per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cockblock&diff=next&oldid=419159933  108.73.114.19 (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me to remove that absurdity from that article. "Kochtopus" still doesn't belong here, but neither does "Kochblock" belong there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Absurd" is an extremism, please tone it down. 99.19.45.38 (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second that. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Replaced Special:Contributions/99.56.120.189 comment written over by User:Arzel.
Similar discussion on Talk:Tea Party movement 99.56.120.189 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)  ... see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family&diff=423699862&oldid=423698278 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Similar to User:Arthur Rubin deletion of User Talk? Example: User_talk:OhanaUnited  99.109.124.21 (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Include these too for Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin ... See wp:tea (removed Thank you's) hid other's Talk, User Talk:Zodon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277    These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics).   99.119.131.248 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Why no 'Political activities of George Soros' article?
Does anyone know if such an article existed and was deleted? This piece seems to indicate that Soros is a bigger player in political donations than the Koch brothers. Drrll (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One reason this article exists is that the political activities of the Koch brothers are often considered together. We could duplicate the material in the articles of each brother, but that has obvious problems. It's simpler to treat them together when that's what the sources do. Soros is a different topic and that bio has its own talk page.    Will Beback    talk    23:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant article has its own section - George_Soros. If the section gets long enough, the topic can have its own subarticle (WP:SUMMARY style). Rd232 talk 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are both valid explanations. It seems to me that although Soros is at least as politically active as the Koch brothers, there is less interest in that activity by good reliable sources and possibly by Wikipedians. Drrll (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The section in the Soros article is about as long as this article is. Rd232 talk 23:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt redux
Now that the RfC is closed it's time to draft the text. Any objections to this proposal?  Will Beback   talk    06:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt has described the Koch brothers as "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning".
 * Seems OK. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That will work. Drrll (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. This whole incident is quite disturbing, however since this now has to be included it must be within context.  Below is my within context suggestion.


 * In response to their donation to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt called the Koch Brothers "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning". Lead physicist, Richard Muller said Koch and other contributors will have no influence over the results and added that the Koch donation was less than the $188,587 contributed by the federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Muller is a senior scientist.
 * Context is everything. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Arzel's language is a definite improvement and shows all the facets of Roosevelt’s slander by incorporating Muller. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. Introduces unnecessary confusion (unnecessary detail about one study) and is misleading in its juxtaposition of Roosevelt's general statement with the facts about one study, as if the one negated the other. The original was just fine. Rd232 talk 14:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer Arzel's version. Drrll (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. Explain your opinion, with a view to persuading others; merely stating a preference is worth very little. Rd232 talk 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have already had the discussion and now its time to decide on how it gets into the article. This seems like as good a way as any. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer Arzel's version as being compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. The goal of balance is implicit to Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well... you lost the argument for inclusion of a simple statement in the previous, very lengthy RFC. So now you propose a complex, misleading version of that statement which is unacceptable for inclusion, and obviously those who opposed inclusion will back your play. Do we need a second RFC to confirm the result of the first, or can we just skip this nonsense? Rd232 talk 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfC was to determine if her opinion deserved any mention at all, not the context of what that opinion might be. I never argued the wording of any proposed statement, so your premise is faulty.  Aside from that, exactly how is my verion misleading?  Arzel (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its "misleading" because it contextualizes and deflates Roosevelt's nakedly partisan claims, and we won’t have any of that. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really think it does that, then you're failing WP:COMPETENCE. Rd232 talk 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comment above, and see also Will Beback's comment 06.11 14 April 2011. Rd232 talk 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason, that is an opinion, if you can't back up what is misleading than I suggest you retract the statement. My original argument against is and always been that Roosevelt is not notable and her opinion was an ad-hom attack.  If you read the discussion it is clearly whether her opinion deserves any mention at all.  The actual wording was never under discussion.  Even Will's intial statement here is for a draft of text.  Now that the RfC has concluded and regarded the source as being related to the Koch's you don't get to pick and choose that only certain parts of her opinion are usable.  I clearly summarized her statement and provided a response to that statement from the article.  If you want to start another RfC then by all means go right ahead.  Arzel (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. True or false? Roosevelt's statement is generically about the Koch brothers as "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning". This was what the RFC approved. 2. True or false? What you've added as text which is supposed "context" is about one single study. 3. True or false? This juxtaposition conveys the impression that funding arrangements of the single study refutes Roosevelt's statement about national funding arrangements. 4. True or false? This impression is misleading, since Roosevelt's claim does not involved a blanket "all swans are white" claim for which a single study could be a "black swan". 5. It is difficult to believe that you don't know exactly what are you doing here. Stop it. Rd232 talk 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. False.  Her statement was being used to say that the BEST study was biased because the Koch's were major funders.  She claims that they are funding studies to show that Global Warming does not exist.  2.  True and False?  Her article was about that one study.  Her phrasing of the statement was in relation to that one study in order to discredit the study.  She implies, by association, that the Koch's are often funders of studies like the BEST study, is that true?  Who knows, the better question is, "Is the BEST study being done in order to prover that Global Warming does not exist?".  I doubt that since Bill Gates also donated a huge amount of money to the study.  3. ? Obviously you feel that way.  There was no juxtaposition of what she said, so your question has no basis.  Without any additional context the line has no "why" for why she even made the statement.  4.  False, and if you think so present your own suggestion.  5. Please don't lecture me.  This is a BLP article, Roosvelt makes a pretty strong statement attacking the Koch's motive behind their philanthropy.  You are an Admin, please abide by the core principles of WP of Weight and NPOV, especially within a BLP.  Arzel (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The statement is generic, as you well know; your responses sidesteps the issue by addressing the use to which that generic statement is put - according to you. I would dispute that she is saying the study is biased in a manner that invalidates the study itself - rather, pointing out the unusual confluence of funding. Certainly, no quote from the article obviously supports your contention. 2. No such implication, it is clear enough from the article that it is an unusual study bringing together funding sources that don't normally go together. 3. The statement is generic. Placing it together with the specific study in that way is obviously intended to make her statement look silly - which fails on a careful reading, but is done well enough that's it a clear violation of NPOV; an unacceptable re-presentation of source material to give an impression radically different from the source. 4. I don't think you understood; but whatever. 5. Roosevelt's statements is factual. Others' have questioned Kochs' motivation on this funding point, but that statement clearly does not. 6. "please abide bide"... oh for God's sake. I'm not the one who wants to misrepresent a living person's statement (Roosevelt's). Rd232 talk 23:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add this: I have no objection to covering the BEST study in a way that doesn't mess around with the generic statement, like in a separate paragraph - if covering that study is of particular interest to you. Rd232 talk 23:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One point I haven't made clearly enough: the Roosevelt quote clearly relates primarily to Koch lobbying, not to funding scientific research. That's how far off base you are. Do you really not get this? Rd232 talk 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you make this statement? The article is, without a shread of a doubt, about the BEST study.  In the 2nd paragraph Roosevelt states that Muller is a climate skeptic.  The 3rd paragraph is Roosevelt making her ad-hom attack against the Koch's in order to discredit the study.  Even more than that she makes a guilt by association attack on the Koch's as well.  The 6th paragraph is Muller stating that the funders of the study will not influence the results.  If Roosevelt is not referring to this scientific research than why does she even mention that they are partially funding this research?  Obviously, the Koch's partial funding of the study was a issue of the interview or Muller wouldn't have even made a specific note that they would not influence the study.  It is plainly obvious what Roosevelt is doing, the fact that so many editors, including you, wish to ignore this in order to insert her ad-hom attack against the Koch's really tells alot about the focus of editors on WP in certain articles.  I gave a clear summarization of her quote within the context of the article from which it came.  If editors wish to trash the Koch's I suggest they do it somewhere else, and you, as an admin, should know better.  I am utterly amazed that not only is an ad-hominen attack allowed to be inserted into a BLP article, but that no less than three admins don't have a problem with it, and no less than two are actively working to insert an ad-hom attack.  Arzel (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the BEST study, obviously. Equally obviously, the statement - which a lengthy RFC concluded was fine - is not about the study, it is about Koch lobbying. Stop playing silly games. Rd232 talk 12:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um -- the article is about a specific study but conclusions made by the author do not have any connection to that study?  How can you "know" that?  Most articles which make conclusions are based on what is in the article, really. Collect (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a conclusion from the article (how the hell could it be?), it is an assertion based on the author's background knowledge, providing context for an article about the BEST study. Why do you think we spent so much time talking about Roosevelt, if it's a conclusion which flows naturally from the evidence in the article? Now I've had enough of this at least borderline trolling, I'm putting in the article what the lengthy RFC agreed on, and if anyone wants to add something about the BEST study, that's a separate issue. Rd232 talk 17:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um -- WP requires that we not post in articles what we "know", but only what is actually in the source. "conclusions which fall naturally from the article" are not proper claims.  Collect (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one saying it's a conclusion from the article (Most articles which make conclusions are based on what is in the article, really.). Re-read my previous comment more carefully. Rd232 talk 19:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Will's version is supported by the source. Arzel's version editorializes heavily in an attempt to neutralize the content. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editorilizes heavily? Really, did you even read the article?  Arzel (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

How about simply:


 * In response to their donation to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt described the Koch Brothers as "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning".

Its concise, puts the quote in context and makes clear that this is the opinion of Roosevelt. Bonewah (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also misleading. "In response" implies some causal connection between the study donation and the opinion. There is zero evidence of that. PS I've already added the short form statement the RFC was about, plus a mention of the BEST study - have a look. Rd232 talk 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, how about:


 * In an article about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, Los Angeles Times reporter Margot Roosevelt described the Koch Brothers (who provided $188,587 worth of funding) as "the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning".


 * I find your claim that there is no connection between the study donation and the opinion to be utterly laughable, are we to believe that Ms Roosevelt dropped this opinion in from the sky for no reason whatever? Bonewah (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a transparent attempt to continue the same theme of pretending there is a causal connection, with causality going from A Koch donation to B Roosevelt's opinion. There is zero evidence for that, and precious little logic, seeing as the quote clearly refers to lobbying and the BEST study is not lobbying. The Roosevelt quote is an assertion based on the author's background knowledge, providing context for an article about the BEST study. Now, why do I have to have the exact same conversation about non-arguments with each of you? Are you all having a laugh wasting my time? Either way, it ends here. Launch an RFC, let somebody else tell you lot how ridiculous you're being. PS Your most recent formulation is even more ridiculous given that the article already covers this quite adequately. Rd232 talk 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, i ive wasted quite enough time on this minor point. I think its obvious you have absolutely know intention of working collaboratively with me as youve slapped back even minor offers of compromise. Your behavior is disgraceful and I would be a fool to continue to subject myself to it. Bonewah (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread is indeed full of disgraceful behaviour, seemingly aimed at subverting the clear outcome of the lengthy RFC. This isn't about "compromise", it's about doing an endrun round the RFC result by those who don't like it. Zurlihee's remark about "shows all the facets of Roosevelt’s slander" sums it up. Rd232 talk 22:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * His proposal makes absolutely no causal connection. It is obvious that you just want your version and won't accept any compromises concerning mention of Roosevelt's pronouncement of Truth. Drrll (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Wont accept any compromises? Thats an amazing claim seeing as I changed my proposal in direct response to Rd232's complaint (as vacuous as I find it to be).  Hell, my initial proposal was, itself, an attempt at compromise, and what do i get for my trouble? Called a troll and ridiculous, thats what.  Bonewah (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Drrll was addressing me. Rd232 talk 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't call you a troll, I wondered if various people in this thread might be trolling. The inability or unwillingness to note the distinction is exemplary of the giant waste of time and space that this entire thread is. If you (or anyone else) can't live with what's in the article now (based on the RFC), then start a new RFC, putting the article content and your proposal side by side. (I'll make popcorn.) Rd232 talk 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Drrll, if i misunderstood the target or your post I am truly sorry (i really should have just walked away). I can live with what is in the article now, i honestly have no idea why this was such a big deal in the first place. Bonewah (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I have no idea why it's a big deal myself. Drrll (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Rd232, the fact that you will not even allow a mention of the relationship between the BEST study simply implies to me that you are editing from a political agenda point of view, which is extremely distressing given your role as an admin. You have no cause for removal of this aspect for full context. The only editor here showing any unwillingness to compromise is yourself. Additionally, you made a POV edit to the Scott Walker donation. Arzel (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Rd232 is up to 3 reverts for today on this matter. Drrll (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, when i said, above, that i could live with whats in the article now, i meant this version (except for the capital 'B'). I mistakenly thought that RD232 was offering a small measure of compromise to end this stupidity.  I can see now that it was just a continuation of his insistence that his way, and only his way will do.  Bonewah (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an RFC, what I did matches the spirit and letter of its outcome. If you want to do something different, do a new RFC. Stop trying to subvert the outcome of the old one. Rd232 talk 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Drrl, you removed significant details, even though the source does support them. Muller and Curry are the lead scientists on BEST (that's not entirely clear from the source, but it's easily sourceable (eg from sources in the BEST article - Muller is the lead actor, Curry the only climatologist). I would fix this, but 3RR prevents it. Rd232 talk 23:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is clearly slanted, especially considering that this is a BLP article. I don't have a problem with including that some of the individuals are considered skeptics--if it's sourced more neutrally.  From the BEST article, it appears that while Muller is the founder, the lead scientist is Robert Rohde and Curry is an adviser, thus the statement was misleading. Drrll (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is this for instance. Interestingly, the lead scientist, Robert Rohde, appears to be User:Dragons flight. Rd232 talk 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that article appears to be even more suspect than the California Watch article. It is written Joseph J. Romm, editor of a blog "dedicated to providing the progressive perspective on climate science, climate solutions, and climate politics," part of the liberal Center for American Progress.  I think your right about User:Dragons flight! Drrll (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * California Watch is an award-winning project of the respected Center for Investigative Reporting. I'd strongly disagree that it is not a reliable source.   Will Beback    talk    19:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Upon closer examination, I see that it appears to be a solid source, although two things make me wonder about its objectivity: on the Our Mission page, it says that it "exposes injustice" and the story in question links to the liberal Climate Progress blog. Drrll (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that sources be perfectly neutral. WP:V:  Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.   Will Beback    talk    08:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Drrll (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Joseph J. Romm's Climate Progress? 99.181.135.38 (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is part of the left-leaning Center for American Progress and Climate Progress itself is "dedicated to providing the progressive perspective...". Drrll (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

POV tags
POV tags are subject to removal if they are not adequately explained such that a previously uninvolved editor can understand the problem and potentially fix it. Rd232 talk 23:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are on here complaining that any mention of the BEST study within the framework of Roosevelts statement implies some misleading statement about the validity of her statement, yet you go right on and make changes to their Scott Walker donations to imply that the Koch's have bought and paid for Walker even though the Koch donation is a very small amount of the total donations. On top of that you are using the biased Mother Jones as the primary source.  I am utterly dumbfounded by your actions.  Arzel (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I merely re-organised the section; the Mother Jones source was already there. The claim that the Koch donation is a tiny part of Walker's fundraising is not adequately explained or sourced. If you don't like it, put in some leg work getting decent sources, instead of sitting there "utterly dumbfounded". Rd232 talk 09:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Koch donation is a tiny part of Walker's fundraising makes the statement WP:UNDUE, even if properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Source: State financing statements, although not available online where I can find it. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well what's sourced in the article is that it's the second largest donation. Rd232 talk 21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Still seems undue, particularly for that section, and the association between Koch, Walker and anti-union activity resembles WP:SYNTHESIS.  I won't challenge it, though. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

2012 Election
Should we add a section discussing support (or criticism) for different presidential candidates? Hermain Cain appears to be a favorite. The brothers dismissed Trump earlier. Churchillreader (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest avoiding too much coverage of political races as they happen. By 2014 no one will care about the short-term ups and downs. It'd be better to wait until there is a clear choice, or a significant statement of preference. There are perhaps eight potential candidates. Trump never declared so he hasn't even been a candidate. Let's keep our focus on making an article that will have enduring value, not a version of yesterday's sports page.   Will Beback    talk    20:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Wikipedia is not a palce for crystal ball gazing at all. Collect (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Add http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity ?
Add http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity ? 99.181.140.229 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a real blog, rather than a news article or column in the form of a blog, so is not usable, per WP:BLPSPS. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like a magazine blog. If so, it would be acceptable. See WP:NEWSBLOG.   Will Beback    talk    18:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look like a magazine blog, but it is an opinion piece by a non-journalist/non-expert. Since this WP article is an article in the scope of WP:BLP, shouldn't use of an opinion piece be governed by whether the opinion piece is referenced by a third-party news source? Drrll (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what this would really add to the article. He is really just recapping what Mayer and Rich said in their respective articles. Bonewah (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the edits of IP99 and the sources IP99 tries to add to articles the best bet would be ignore IP99 in general. They seem most interested in promoting a specific point of view.  Arzel (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that 99 is the only one posting here who has an axe to grind, then I've got a museum wing to sell you. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which "Rich", Richard A. Muller Chair of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant Frank Rich, the one recapped in the USA today article. Bonewah (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

== Of reference interest from Greenpeace; Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial 2011 Update ? ==

Of reference interest from Greenpeace; Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial 2011 Update ? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of interest, thank you. (",)  99.181.128.190 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interest, perhaps. Usable in this article, no.  Not a WP:RS.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

404 error for kansascity.com reference.
404 error for kansascity.com reference. 99.181.131.76 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Also "believes" is contradicted, "states" would be neutral. 99.181.131.76 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's supposedly a real newspaper; the article (no longer) being available online is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Warren Buffett
Should we at least address the controversy? Wirelesswonderer (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested these be added from Koch family

 * The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win investigative reporting by Jane Mayer, full audio report (27:48) by Fresh Air at NPR, based on Mayer's Koch Brothers Cover Story for The New Yorker, August 26, 2010
 * Billionaire Koch Brothers Have Quietly Given More Than $100 Million to Right-Wing Causes - video report by Democracy Now!
 * Video Report by the Australian ABCs "Hungry Beast" about the Koch brothers involvement in financing climate sceptics initiatives. 99.181.130.99 (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was suggested (by me) that this is the only article to which they might be relevant. I'm not really convinced they belong here, either, but they might fit as external links if there aren't already good sources for the information used in the article.  As I'm not going to spend more than an hour viewing the media files to determine whether there is relevant information, and the descriptions actually represent something in the file, I'll need to have whoever first wanted to add the links to Koch family comment as to what is actually there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we only include in this article information that Arthur Rubin views as flattering to the Koch brothers. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As I haven't viewed / listened to the media files, I don't know whether they're appropriate, or possibly in violation of WP:ELNO#2, #13, or one of the other WP:ELNO sections. If they meet the conditions I specified, they would meet WP:ELYES#3, even if they were legally defamatory.  And the IP-hopping editor has a long history of adding tangentially-related sources, so ELNO#13 seems likely.  I don't think he's linked to violations of #2, although he has violated WP:NPA a number of times.
 * If you have actually viewed / listened to the files, and believe they're appropriate, go ahead and add them. If you haven't viewed / listened to the files, it would be inappropriate for you to add them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Funding of Climate Change Denial
Because there have been repeated attempts to update the funding of climate change denial from Koch Industries, namely David and Charles Koch, i post the info here again hope someone adds this at a later point to the Koch wikis. There seems to be a systematically censoring going on from certain users when it comes to updating the Koch Wikis. This is also the reason why several wikis are marked as not neutral view and written with a pro Koch bias. Gise-354x (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Funding of climate change denial Koch Industries keeps funding up and a recent study from april 2011 concluded that Koch Industries has Now Spent $55 Million on funding climate denial. Koch Industries Outspends Exxon 3-to-1 when it comes to climate change denial.

Koch Industries gave scientist Willie Soon $175,000 in 2005, 2006, and 2010 to fund research which is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Overall, Soon received over one million dollars from energy companies to perform climate research.

A Greenpeace study found that between 1997 and 2008 Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to groups which doubt or oppose the theory of anthropogenic global warming.


 * [Bonewah |Bonewah] removed the contents, which are not part of the wiki, he removed the seection on funds and improved content and updates see here Gise-354x (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As i said in my edit summary, i removed the content in question because the same material already is in the article in the section titled '"Lobbying for oil, gas, and chemical industries'. Further, i dont feel that 'tree hugger' is a reliable source, and therefore, is unsuitable for a citation. Bonewah (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think that your feelings are very relevant when it comes to the facts about Koch Industries fossil fuel funding records. What you actively ignore is the circumstance that there have been 2011 updates in the edits, which you now have erased. Gise-354x (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what you are driving at here, as I said, the content you added was a duplicate of material that was already in the article. I removed it for that reason. Bonewah (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The content which you removed are no longer part of the wiki, that are 3 studies & the section. Bonewah and Collect have both deleted the improvements of the article and refuse so far the discussion about the new section. Beside that at the Koch Industries section about Political Activities some of these studies are part, so not including them here does not make a lot of sense Gise-354x (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

<-(OD)In the section titled 'Lobbying for oil, gas, and chemical industries' you will note the sentence that says "According to a Greenpeace report, from 2005 to 2008, Koch Industries and the foundations under its control donated $5.7 million on political campaigns and $38 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. The report also says that between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to "climate change skeptic groups",[33]". This sentence is still in the article after my edits. The section that you added, that I removed contained the following "A Greenpeace study found that between 1997 and 2008 Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to groups which doubt or oppose the theory of anthropogenic global warming." (plus cite) which is almost the exact same thing as what is in the article already, as I have said. The other portion of your addition, the line "Koch Industries keeps funding up and a recent study from april 2011 concluded that Koch Industries has Now Spent $55 Million on funding climate denial." (plus cite) is sourced back to 'Tree hugger' which, as I said, i dont feel is a reliable source. I hasten to add that several other editors have also said that they dont believe that Tree hugger is a reliable source. The only person who is refusing to discus things is you. Bonewah (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Climate_change_controversy = Climate change denial. 99.119.129.16 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was this removed regarding funding "skeptic" partisans?
99.181.141.252 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Undue weight, partial irrelevance (Coal and oil industry irrelevant to this article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And duplicates the first paragraph of the section. It does appear that this version is better, so I removed the first paragraph and the irrelevant parts of this paragraph from User:Will Beback's restoration. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "(Coal and oil industry irrelevant to this article.) " to Koch Industries, an oil, gas, and chemical conglomerate? 99.35.13.81 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. If Koch funding is a small fraction of Soon's funding, that should be noted, but it doesn't matter whether the additional funding is from the energy industry or not, for the purpose of this article.  Exactly who funded Soon is relevant in that article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Business/Trading with Iran
Koch has been trying to discredit a story before it happened. Much when Koch sponsored Tea Party events. This involves business with Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAmidei (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you're trying to say, it would be a WP:BLP violation to say it in the article. (And we're already reporting the story, anyway, although no rational person would call it political activities.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going on record to say that doing business with Iran is not political. Must be some bizzaro world I'm living in. Just imagine if these people did this with the Soviet Union in the Cold War or the Nazis in WW2. The Tea Party benefactors have done business with Iran. --JLAmidei (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying that doing business with Iran is not political. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please have a vote on this subject? Koch's doing business illegally with Iran is political no matter how you slice it.--JLAmidei (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Iran – United States relations and Sanctions (law) for starters. It is absurd to presume "business" is not related to politics.  For another, just look at Syria and Russia (which sells Syria weapons), and the recent United Nations Security Council vote ...   For more, see Japan Inc. and the PRC's State capitalism.   99.119.128.87 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is illegal for the US family of companies to deal with Iran, it may not be illegal for the French subsidiary. And the anon seems to be assuming that all business is politics.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're defending them because its a subsidiary. That's rich. Tell that to Rupert Murdoch and his British subsidiary are going to be under investigation soon by the Justice Department because of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with the phone hacking. I could see the same thing happening with Koch Industries and their subsidiary with doing business with Iran being headquartered in the USA. --JLAmidei (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or what of company such as Raytheon selling arms, in contrast with the Russians ... ?  99.190.87.183 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Arms dealer War profiteering, such as Viktor Bout. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit upholding the policies of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, I would like to point out that maybe this recent Koch/Iran issue is part of something something broader. The broader issue is that Koch family brother's have had a notable influence in shaping both Islamic and Middle Eastern issues, both Good and Bad. Bad: If not by the issue of Koch-Glitsch Iranian ties that ended in 2007, then by simply looking at Koch_Industries unethical ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria. Good: However, not everything the Koch Brother's have done has adversely affected America relationship with the Middle East. In fact the David Koch is very well known in Georgia universities for his support through the Koch_Family_Foundations of the support of nonviolent solutions to problems in Middle East and around the world. In fact, Georgia Tech undergrad, Madison Lee recently won $5,000 dollar scholarship from David Koch for profound essay how to ending violence of against women around the world especially in the Middle east. One of the reason she won was because of her references to nonviolent methods of Iraqi Al-Amal. Physics16 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)