Talk:Koch network/Archive 8

Koch brothers views views
A recent edit "Koch Industries cited the protests an example of liberal hypocrisy regarding fundraising as these same groups don't protest big money donations for Democratic fundraisers" need to have the specific source assigned to that statement Currently there are five cites and it is not clear which one supports that statement:


 * In July 2012, David H. Koch hosted a $50,000-a-person ($75,000 a couple) fundraising dinner for 2012 Republican Party Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, which was the subject of liberal and progressive protests. Koch Industries cited the protests an example of liberal hypocrisy regarding fundraising as these same groups don't protest big money donations for Democratic fundraisers.[17][69][70][71][72]

Also, The statement is asserting a fact, when it is actually the Koch's opinion, and should be corrected along the lines of: Koch Industries cited the protests an example of what they see as liberal hypocrisy regarding fundraising as these same groups don't protest big money donations for Democratic fundraisers Cwobeel (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement "Koch Industries cited" is a statement of their opinion. It was in the last Forbes source of that section.  I am moving it back to the statement that their were protests.  Arzel (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the last source . I don't see it there. Which one is it? Cwobeel (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Second to last source. The Forbes article.  Arzel (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I returned some of AS's edit. That section should include their views. It was dominated by opposition in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Additionally, the last part violated WP:LEAD as those issues are not addressed in the article. Those last issues also don't appear to be RS as well. Arzel (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Arzel. Taking a look at your recent edit, I can understand your reasoning behind removing two of the references for the only reason that they need to be inserted into the article first. However, by changing:


 * The brothers fund organisations advocating lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services and less oversight of industry - in particular environmental regulation.


 * into


 * The brothers advocate libertarian principles of smaller government, free-markets, deregulation, and reduction of social services.


 * you make it abundantly clear that you are editing with some kind of agenda by using ideological terms traditionally associated with conservatism. In showing your point of view, you stifle the presentation of other points of view which you may not like. I can happily invoke WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and make false accusations of the same sort. I have left the former edit because I agree but have reverted the most recent contribution with some minor tweaking to lexis. I urge you to try constructive engagement before reversion. Thanks. KingHiggins (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Pot meet kettle. That version is the version that had been in the article for some time until you made the change a month ago.  This article is not the "Mayer view of the Koch brothers".  It is perfectly acceptable to present what they advocate in the lead.  Arzel (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth, I don't see any major differences between these two statements. On the other hand, it would be better to use the sources rather than coming up with our own ideas on how to describe it. Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Though it seems that they avoid publicly commenting on what their positions on various topics are, the one thing they have been abundantly clear on is that they advocate for libertarian ideals; as far as WP:BLP is concerned, how it is more accurate or acceptable - when describing their goals - to remove their own publicly stated goals and to substitute in its place material from a source whose explicit purpose is to criticize them? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To reply: Arzel; I appreciate what you are saying and realise the mistake I made at the time - when I reinsert the passge I will be sure to add it to the rest of the article first. Cwobeel: I completely agree and also think that a total blank statement of their ideology is bound to raise issues - below I have collatedf sources that detail the Koch's ideology. AdventurousSquirrel: Rather than what the Kochs describe themselves as, the article should focus on what the majority of RS sources have to say. So, let us examine that (I have taken an extract from each source and attached a link so you can read them fully if you wish):


 * Democrats depict the Kansas-based Koch brothers as self-serving oil barons who pay huge sums to try to “buy” elections and advance their agenda of low taxes and less regulation. And they’re using unusually harsh language in the Senate. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/democrats-turn-focus-wealthy-koch-brothers-article-1.1716954#ixzz2vgASIAiZ


 * The Koch brothers, who provide one of the largest sources of money for Republican politicians and conservative causes, spent $413 million two years ago. - http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/koch-brothers-spent-more-on-2012-election-than-top-10-unions-combined-140311?news=85265

(insert)*This ref is not a reliable source. Allgov is the vanity operation of a screenwriter in LA. Apparently largely staffed by students and volunteers. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC) - two other sources, NYT and Huffpost saying the same thing
 * The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial... - http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

(insert) Press releases are not Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC) - full study can be read here|here. KingHiggins (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The U.S. news media routinely fail to inform the public about the fossil fuel industry funders behind climate change contrarian think tanks, according to an investigation by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). - http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/news-media-helps-koch-brothers-exxon-mobil-spread-climate-disinformation.html


 * ...the council doesn’t really support free markets, either. It supports the companies that fund it. This is an important distinction, because the corporations that donate to ALEC aren’t doing so to protect markets. They’re protecting favored tax treatments and pushing regulations that lock in their market positions. (this is an organisation that the Koch's funded heavily) - http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdonalds-coca-cola-and-intuit-fleeing-alec

(insert) Source makes no mention of Kochs. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC) As explained below, the source is talking about ALEC - the Koch were the principal donors- see |hereand |here] KingHiggins (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * second source linking ALEC with the Kochs - Exchange Council's (ALEC) Corporatist “Disaster Capitalism” on the ... Americans for Prosperity (AFP) - heavily backed by the Koch Bros. -

(insert) This was a site quoting a blog. The blog site was a spam/hijack site. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC) - see above point. KingHiggins (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...a very large, systematic effort, funded by many wealthy Republicans, including especially the billionaire Koch Brothers, to disparage climate scientists, their efforts, and the science they release. - http://religiousstudies.cofc.edu/documents/Papers/levasseur-Environmental%20Ideology%20JSRI.pdf (ournal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, vol. 11, issue 33)

(insert) Article written by adjunct professor of religion with specialty in religious agrarianism probably not best source of info on Koch's political efforts. Sources (per footnotes) are bad. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC) the source was simply quoting the study that I gave you the full link to. KingHiggins (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...within the corporate and social networks of Koch Industries and TD Ameritrade, mainly share a particular belief system and show a non-trivial degree of coordinated activity through political donations to PACs in order to elect government officials consistent with their policy beliefs for government.


 * Underwritten by the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch, and fuelled by .... has to be understood in relation to the political impact of neo-liberal “post-ideology”. - www.polecom.org/index.php/polecom/article/view/10/109


 * In recent years, though, the right has moved even further to the right, as more base Republican voters have embraced libertarian ideology and deep-pocketed funders like the Koch brothers have put more resources behind promoting this extreme worldview. -http://prospect.org/article/challenging-myths-libertarian-right


 * A specter is haunting Detroit — the specter of the Koch Brothers' toxic brand of unregulated corporatism -http://www.laane.org/capitalandmain/koch-brothers-huge-coke-cloud-darkens-detroit/


 * Koch brothers, is leading the class war by corporatists and plutocrats to disenfranchise ordinary people. -http://critiques.us/mediawiki/index.php?title=Organizations


 * That is the basic difference between capitalism and corporatism. ... The market forces that the Koch Brothers and other faux libertarians -http://jedmorey.com/2014/a-renewed-discourse-on-inequality-part-ii/

(insert) Self Published Source a blog who's motto is "SO FAR LEFT, WE ARE RIGHT". Not RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The funding and ideological vision provided by corporate leaders (such as the Koch brothers of Koch Industries) have shaped the movement so that small businesses (that might otherwise resent their corporate counterparts for receiving favorable treatment from the government) are willing to join the hegemonic bloc of business interests and further the neoliberal agenda (Frank, 2012, p. 93-95; Guardino and Snyder, 2012, p. 529-530)


 * These are the most reliable sources I could find from a quicktrawl. So, what conclusions are there in terms of a 'Koch ideology'?


 * 1) Only one RS source described this ideology as 'libertarian'.
 * 1) When this came up elsewhere, the connotation was normally negative, these I omitted.
 * 1) The ideologies that appeared most often were 'corporatism', 'conservative', 'neo-liberal'.
 * 1) Their activities always appeared in a context that criticised the Koch brothers; this highlights how polarised the representation is of the Koch brothers. However, it seems that the vast majority of  sources are highly critical of their activities; this is not shown in the article.
 * 1) References to fuding of anti-climate change groups always used the term 'climate denial', is this term too loaded do you think?
 * So the question is, should the article use the language that the Koch's would like themselves to be described with or should it take the view of the majority of sources. Of course, this is a WP:BLP so care should be taken, but in every other GA BLP I checked, the articles used the ideological description of the sources rather than the individual (to take an extreme example Stalin contains with many regarding him as a tyrant). What are your thoughts? Just to make my intentions absolutely clear, they are to improve the article and not to turn it into a hit piece on the Koch brothers. Thanks, I hope this can be constructive. KingHiggins (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This version


 * The brothers fund organisations advocating lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services and less oversight of industry - in particular environmental regulation.


 * Is a WP:COPYVIO. It is lifted directly from the ref. It may not be used. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ok how about something like The vast majority of the Koch's funding is directed towards conservative and right wing thinktanks and political campaigns.(ref) In the 2012 United States presidential election, the brothers spent $413 million on predominantely Republican candidates, a larger overall contribution than the top ten unions combined.[ref] I think the Koch ideolgoy could be tackled in its own section. KingHiggins (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to compare with union funding for sure. What you might use is
 * The brothers mainly contribute to libertarian and conservative thinktanks and campaigns.

Anything more verges on OR and SYNTH at pest, and POV at worst. Collect (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that sounds fine to me. The only issue I have is whether they have contributed to libertarian groups, as far as I am aware much more of their funding goes to organisations such as CATO and AfP which are conservative rather than libertarian, there is a clear difference ("they nominated a ticket I wasn't happy with" and "so many of the hard-core Libertarian ideas are unrealistic."[D. Koch]). KingHiggins (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * CATO Institute is described here at wikipedia and at countless RS refs as libertarian. It was founded by Charles Koch. David H. Koch was the 1980 U.S. Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate. The proposed formulation "mainly contribute to libertarian and conservative" is accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a minor point that we also need to change the tense of the sentence to historical. Arzel (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ok that sounds like consensus to me, I have put Collect's statement in but I did not know the specific reference that was intended so feel free to add the ref. Thanks. KingHiggins (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect running for office as a Libertarian is a clue here  Collect (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * D. Koch rejected the libertarian party after he ran on their ticket - most of their money has gone to pro-business/conservative groups. My rather cynical view is that they prefer the libertarian label...but my opinion does not matter in this context. KingHiggins (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Inside the $400-million political network backed by the Kochs
A recent edit by Hcobb added some very informative information from the Washington post. Overall, it is a good addition to the article. That being said, Hcobb singled out four groups: Republican Jewish Coalition United States Chamber of Commerce National Rifle Association National Federation of Independent Business Which raise a question of WP:WEIGHT; how were those four groups chosen from the 23 groups listed on the chart? Was the selection influenced by bias, conscious or unconscious? It certainly does match the "Koch brothers support conservative republicans" narrative, but all evidence points to the Koch brothers being libertarian, not conservative.

I did some research, and found a breakdown of which groups got the most money.

The top ten were: Center to Protect Patient Rights $142,712,000 Americans for Prosperity         $38,019,800 60 Plus Assn                     $33,750,000 American Future Fund             $27,640,000 Themis Trust                     $15,706,000 SG C4 Trust (Public Notice)      $15,177,943 Concerned Women for America      $10,938,600 Generation Opportunity           $9,170,000 American Commitment              $7,874,985 EvangChr4 Trust                  $5,790,000

Of the four that Hcobb chose, none were in the top ten. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce got $3 million and the National Federation of Independent Business got $1.6 million.

Now it is tempting to just replace the four groups with the top four listed above, but that isn't right either. Look at the graphic by the sixth paragraph of the opensecrets.org page. Now look at this.

So, how do we unravel this mess and show the reader the true picture of where the money is flowing? Any suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'd have to say that the only group worth singling out is the top recipient, since it got ~36% of the money.  The rest should be collapsed into "... and 22 other organizations." Roccodrift (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One source is the Washington Post reporting a study they did with the Center for Responsive Politics, while the other is OpenSecrets Blog which is published by the Center for Responsive Politics. In the first report, the NRA and the other groups listed are among the major recipients, and the CPPR is reported as a funding organization, while in the second it is the major recipient.  Probably best to find the original report they are both using.  TFD (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well we can only go by the sources, but if it is felt the sources are being partisan that is a basis for worry, perhaps better sources can be found.
 * As to just the top entry 'Center to Protect Patient Rights' I had a quick look and it seems to give money to loads of other groups including later entries on this same list. I agree this really is a mess., it would be nice if some source did work on trying to untangle the thread to see where the money actually ends up. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the sources we are talking about are not particularly partisan, but rather figuring out where the money came in and went out is complicated. As the most recent edit to the page correctly points out, the Koch's didn't donate $400 million. Non-profits supported by groups the Kochs supported raised $400m. To make things even more complex, the Washington Post article pulls together info on three organizations -- but does not give any actual dollar amounts -- while other sources tend to document just one of those organizations.
 * Might I suggest simply deleting the four organizations listed by name while we figure this out?--Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Open Secrets created a graphic in connection with their joint project with the Washington Post. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Maze_of_Money.png --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When weighting the importance of a given donation, there are more things to consider than the raw size of a donation. Another thing to consider is how significant a given donation is to a particular recipient. In other words, it's not just the size of the donation as a percentage of the donor&#39;s total donations, it's also the size of the donation as a percentage of the recipient&#39;s total donation receipts. Obviously, the latter more complicated to evaluate, since it requires knowing both the size of the donation and the recipient's total donation receipts. That risks running into synthesis territory, but if a source does the calculations it's quite reasonable to use it as a way to weigh the importance of a donation. —Steve98052 (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous protester quote
The proposed addition of a quote from an anonymous protester does nothing to improve the section on Koch's support of Romney. Anon attacks on a BLP are problematic in their own right, but even if it was ok per policy it isn't a helpful addition to the article Capitalismojo (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Protests of Cancer research funding, arts and culture
Should this page, which mostly seems to be concerned with activist postings against the Koch brothers, include political protests against Cancer research and arts and culture? [] [] []--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Educational grants revisited
Although I do not think the FSU grant should be considered political, I see consensus has been reached that it is. I won't argue further. However, the UNCF grant should be considered political, because AFSCME considers it so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Article
Why is this story linked? It isn't referenced in the article or provide additional information. At the very least, shouldn't the response of the Koch's at http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/response-to-rolling-stone-story/ be also linked to provide a neutral POV? Ahwiv (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. It should not be linked as a violation of WP:EL and I removed it once already, but at a minimum the response should be included.  Will add the response.  Arzel (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is a syllabus a better source than multiple respected news publications?
Of course not. But, 2601:5:d000:4e2:f47d:efdf:babb:c6a1 seems to insist that it is. Perhaps they could explain how this conforms to our reliable source guidelines.- MrX 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If the syllabus from the actual class contradicts the source, then you have a problem and the section should be removed as unverifiable or attributed as opinion to the source. We don't leave stuff which can be proven to be false in the article just because it is a primary source.  Arzel (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, the syllabus that 2601:x inserted as a reference is on Professor Holcombe's website and is likely the real thing, with a section at the bottom of page two indicating that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is supplementary as opposed to required reading. However, there may be a misunderstanding taking place here. When the Mother Jones article speaks of "books by libertarian icon Ayn Rand would have been required reading", they are probably not referring to Atlas Shrugged, but instead to the other works by Rand that are required reading in the course, to wit: Man's Rights and The Nature of Government (which are found in Rand’s books The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal respectively). Hence, there may be good faith confusion going on here as to which Rand works are being discussed herein with regard to what is required reading and what is not. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, but what is the solution? It does appear to contradict the statement in the article to some degree.  And 2601 said that they took the class and that the statement is not true.  Arzel (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see a contradiction. We have a source that says "...the foundation also wanted the school to start a new class on "Market Ethics: The Vices, Virtues, and Values of Capitalism," in which books by libertarian icon Ayn Rand would have been required reading." and We have a syllabus that merely shows that the Koch's didn't get exactly everything they wanted. However, there are Rand books listed under "Readings." When in doubt, we need to follow reliable secondary sources. If someone can find a secondary source that contradicts the three existing sources, then that may merit a mention. The IP's personal experience does not enter into consideration per WP:OR.- MrX 03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) When 2601:x says the statement is not true, I think they are getting confused, as the statement "Reading for the class would include books by Ayn Rand" is confirmed by the actual course syllabus itself, which indicates that required reading for the class includes material from Rand's books The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (hence, the statement is true).  If you're seeing some other sort of contradiction in the way the article is currently phrased, can you point it out specifically and help us see what you're driving at?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a little searching. The Mother Jones article refers to the Tampa Bay article talking about this.  In that article BB&T is referred as the entity requiring Ayn Rand's books "A separate grant from BB&T funds a course on ethics and economics in which Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is required reading".  There is a document which is for Loyola talking about BB&T's grant and the aforementioned class of "The Moral Foundations of Capitalism".  It appears that the requirement was from BB&T, not the Koch's.  The BB&T article has no mention of the Koch's, thus the MJ article does appear to be wrong.  The TB article contradicts the MJ article.  2601 is correct, and I think we have enough RS's to now remove this incorrect statement.  Arzel (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried looking at your points again this morning (when I'm fresh), but I still had trouble connecting the dots at the end of what you're saying. While the 2011 Tampa Bay article also speaks of a "separate grant from BB&T funds" in which Rand's Atlas Shrugged was required reading (the "Morals" course which 2601:x says nobody actually took, and is also referred to with regard to Loyola), it's not making sense to me how to reach the conclusion that the 2013 Mother Jones article about the "Market Ethics" course is somehow wrong or contradicted.  The source says that the foundation wanted FSU to start a new class on "Market Ethics: The Vices, Virtues, and Values of Capitalism" in which books by Rand would have been required reading.  Didn't that happen?  2601:x has even supplied a syllabus showing that (at least as of the Spring 2014 semester), FSU's Professor Holcombe is indeed teaching "Market Ethics" using works from Rand's books The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.  The "Morals" course may have flopped, but the "Market Ethics" course continues and was enabled by the foundation's donations.  Hence, I'm unable to see how the Mother Jones statement in our article is incorrect.  Can you expand on and/or clarify what you mean when you say that "The BB&T article has no mention of the Koch's, thus the MJ article does appear to be wrong" and "The TB article contradicts the MJ article"?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The TB article is referenced in the MJ article. the MJ article misquoted the TB article.  I posted the Loyola document because BB&T apparently made this agreement with several universities, but only the Loyola one was easily findable in detail.  The statement that Ayn Rand books were required is not supported by TB article which is the source of the MJ article.  I thought maybe BB&T was connected to the Koch's, which is why MJ made that statement.  However, there does not appear to be a connection.  MJ messed up, it happens, we don't need to continue that mistake here.  Arzel (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that support (to varying degrees) that Ayn Rand was required reading:   . It's possible that Mother Jones and several other sources misquoted the Tampa Bay Times article, but we can't determine that ourselves without engaging in original research.- MrX 20:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that any of those sources used the TB article. They appear to have used Progress Florida (Liberal Advocacy Group) and have almost the same exact language and corresponding error.  HuffPo doesn't even mention Rand.  In their rush to attack the Koch brothers they screwed up.  We have no obligation to repeat the screwup.  Arzel (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Arzel - I just circled back and read your comment, and understand now that what you're saying is that the Tampa Bay article is the Mother Jones article's source for the contention about the class, and you thus you think they got it wrong. Hmmm.... looking at the exact text of the Mother Jones article, are you really sure that's the case?  The Mother Jones article links to the Tampa Bay article when it says "In 2011, his foundation sparked a minor controversy in Florida when it pledged $1.5 million..." (the underlined words contain the Tampa Bay hyperlink).  So presumably Mother Jones is citing the Tampa Bay article for the fact that a controversy erupted over the sizable donation (or at least mentioning it in passing).  The next sentence in the Mother Jones article goes on to say that the donation was entangled with hiring decisions, and furthermore, the foundation wanted the school to start a new class on Market Ethics (in which Rand books would used)... but we don't know what the underlying sourcing is for that information.  I don't think it's the Tampa Bay article, because that one only refers to a course in which Rand's Atlas Shrugged was required reading, whereas the Mother Jones article speaks of "books" (plural) and doesn't mention Atlas Shrugged by name.  Thus, the Mother Jones article writing is directly in line with the requirements of the "Market Ethics" course instead of the "Morals" course (thanks to 2601:x supplying the actual syllabus, which has been helpful to us in getting to the bottom of the matter).  As a result, we don't have any real evidence here that Mother Jones got this wrong, or reason to believe that the Market Ethics course (the one going on at FSU right now) wasn't underfunded by the foundation just as the now defunct Morals course was.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean we don't have any evidence the MJ article is wrong? The TB article clearly says that BB&T was the entity requiring the Ayn Rand books.  Left to this we are required by the sourcing to include the TB article which contridicts the MJ article.  This should not be contencious unless you have a problem with the Koch's not really requiring Rand's books.  MJ is not a neutral source in this matter either.  Also, MJ clearly went through lengths to cite the sources for their statements.  Logically it does not hold that there would be some other source for this when the Tb article clearly states the BB&T source.  MJ is in error why should we repeat that error as fact?  Arzel (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I re-read the sources once again this morning and saw things in a different light this time; while the neutrality of Mother Jones should not be a factor in whether or not it's an RS for the statements made, I am seeing your point now about BB&T versus the foundation wanting a course to include works by Rand, and while it's possible the foundation wanted a course separate and apart from BB&T, I now consider it more likely this was just a reporting mistake. It is more important that we get the outcome right, so I think the solution is to remove the Rand course portion until such time further sourcing makes the issue clear.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree if we didn't have several other sources that support the required reading content and make no mention of the Mother Jones or Tampa Bay Times articles. For all we know, they investigated on their own, which is how journalism is supposed to work anyway. - MrX 18:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did take a look just now at the WCTV source you provided above (the AP story by Jill Chanlder), and noted it contained the following near the bottom of the article: "The Koch Foundation also wanted to establish an economics course called “morals and ethics” and require the reading of books by the author Ayn Rand, a conservative economic icon, according to materials obtained by the review committee.  A course was developed as a result called “Market Ethics” and an Ayn Rand book was included as supplemental reading. “The committee is concerned that this new course moved through the approval process without a clear indication that it was donor prescribed with donor-prescribed content,” the report says."
 * This article is dated July 2011, so it predates the Mother Jones article. What's most interesting about it is that it cites materials examined by the review committee to the effect that it was the Koch Foundation that wanted a moral and ethics course with required readings from Rand, then goes on to say that a course called “Market Ethics” was developed which included Rand as supplemental reading.  That sounds exactly like the course in 2601:x's syllabus, doesn't it?  What should we make of this, given that the source is the committee's own report?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that clears up the apparent contradiction. Koch wanted Rand to be required reading and a course was developed in which Rand was suggested reading. There is no reason why we can't adjust the article to reflect both of those facts.- MrX 22:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is more likely caused by a previous course "Morals and Ethics in Economic Systems" that was funded by a grant from BB&T in 2008 and did actually require the reading of Atlas Shrugged. http://www.fsu.edu/news/2008/11/10/bbt.gift/ The class was a joke an no one took it.

Holcombe's course is almost entirely based on Murray Rothbard, with two essay's from Rand. It is absurd to me that the wiki entry suggest "Ayn Rand Book's" (implied Atlas Shrugged) are required reading when as far as I know no one in the class even opened the 700 page book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:D000:4E2:F47D:EFDF:BABB:C6A1 (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the text (as currently written in this Wikipedia article) implies Atlas Shrugged was involved; I also did a page search for "Atlas" and it doesn't appear anywhere in the article. When you took the Market Ethics course, were you required to take an exam at the end (20% of the overall grade) in which material from Atlas Shrugged was on the test?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We discussed the Mother Jones error back when this first came up. I am surprised it is still in the article. They clearly cribbed from the Tampa paper and made an error. The ref from Mother Jones should be removed. I would not re-add the WP:PRIMARY material ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not directly related, but in my experience almost every Koch organization loathes Ayn Rand. There are tons of articles about Murray Rothbard and Rand's mutual hate of each other. The Koch's founded CATO with Rothbard and were heavily involved in the libertarian movement at the time. The idea of the Ayn Rand being pushed by the Kochs is more of a manufactured fantasy of the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.58.166 (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Substantially better article than any cited so far: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/12/15495/koch-foundation-proposal-college-teach-our-curriculum-get-millions Internal Memo: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1292464-kochcostsbenefits.html 128.186.58.167 (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Context is required
The subject of every sentence in this article need not be specifically the political activities of the Koch Brothers. We are required to offer context. Attempting to write an article strictly about the political activities of the Koch Brothers with no context would be an attempt to rob the article of meaningful, contextual content. For example, may we mention that the Koch brothers are brothers? It is not a political issue.

"In 2011, the EPA reported that Koch Industries 'emitted over twenty-four million tons of carbon dioxide', as much as is typically emitted by five million cars."

The second sentence in the climate change section, deleted twice in the last two days. The source is not at issue in edit summaries. Clearly highly relevant context. Not only are the subjects of this article involved in fossil fuels intersts, but, highly relevantly, they are noted emitters of carbon dioxide.

Maybe the whole point of this article is a pure POV fork play, segregate the "political activities" from polluting the Koch brothers' story? Hugh (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be appropriate in Koch Industries. In any case, it requires more context to establish relevance of that sentence to anything.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We have to give the context more context before we can give context? The relevance is not clear? You are not sure if it is relevant that readers of this article understand that Koch Industries is a noted emitter of carbon dioxide by the US EPA as they read the section on the Koch brothers' political activities in the area of climate change? Really? Hugh (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we trying to state that the carbon-footprint of Koch Industries is in itself a political activity? We have no refs for that. If we are trying to imply that the carbon-footprint of Koch Industries is the reason the brothers are active in climate-policy and EPA lobbying, I think we'd need a ref for that. Otherwise we are just engaging in Synthesis. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Capitalismojo; also think the fact is probably relevant to Koch Industries.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what? I think you know that I don't think the carbon emissions themselves are not a political activity. Hugh (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you guys are doing there: hoe to a ultra strict "political activities of the Koch brothers ONLY" policy. Kill the article by stripping it of all context so as to end up with an article you are very sure no one will ever want to read or be able to get through without gagging on incoherence. Would you support a move to "List of political activities of the Koch brothers?" List articles are generally given more leeway with respect to lack of cohesiveness and poor writing and lack of context. Hugh (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not add this content. It has been in the article for over a year. Please self-revert your delete and restore the content as we continue to discuss it. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'm doing is looking for RSs and avoiding WP:Original research, and I've already said the material is probably relevant in a different place. Show me an RS other than your own interpretation that estabishes relevance here, and then I'll agree with you instead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, read the source, the New Yorker. Hugh (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Make your case based on it and I'll listen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Later) oh. I see you edited the article again.  Your last remark would have been helpful if instead you had posted this diff.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would have been helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

United Negro College Fund, FSU: WP:OR WP:SYN
There is nothing in the refs to suggest that either eductional grants are "political". We would need a ref saying that to include, otherwise it is just WP:OR or the opinion of the editors at this page. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my revert; I would be in favor of removing both, but removing FSU would require consensus, due to the edit wars regarding its initial inclusion. We have references that both are controversial, and that the FSU grant is perceived by some (unreliable) sources to be for the purpose of promoting free-market ideology, and we can find other sources that promoting free-market ideology is considered political.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. Are there any refs suggesting that the UNCF grant is in anyway political? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I can find.
 * In the FSU section, I removed one source that discusses yet another grant by yet another Koch Foundation to yet another university, and noted that the opinion column is clearly just that, so is not reliable. But I don't see anyone saying it is "political".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 'dubious' tag that you added, note these sources
 * - MrX 03:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I note that the one about UNCF says nothing about politics. Probably because it was reportedly for just for scholarships and some UNCF general support. The fact that unions don't like the Kochs doesn't make the donation a "political activity" of the Koch brothers. Best try to find a ref in order to include it in an article about political activities.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the "dubious" tag; I think that was . But, we don't have any sources for the FSU donations being "political", either.  There may be some sources that that they are "perceived" to be political, but I haven't found those, either.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't add a "dubious" tag either. I don't see such a tag at the article. Anyway, I have been searching but I see no UNCF refs that would support inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the "dubious" tag; I think that was . But, we don't have any sources for the FSU donations being "political", either.  There may be some sources that that they are "perceived" to be political, but I haven't found those, either.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't add a "dubious" tag either. I don't see such a tag at the article. Anyway, I have been searching but I see no UNCF refs that would support inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no "dubious" tag and hasn't been one in the history that I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Arthur added the reliable source tag a few lines below the existing dubious tag. I have not studied the UNCF sources yet, so I can offer no opinion about it right now.- MrX 04:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Koch scholarships are for students studying “how entrepreneurship, economics, and innovation contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society.” That is political, since only students of a certain political bent would qualify. TFD (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting opinion or theory. Have a ref that supports it? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree.  Only students interested in that "political bent" would be interested in that course of study.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you think for example that members of Occupy Wall Street or MoveOn.Org or similar groups believe that entrepreneurship contributes to the well-being of societies? TFD (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * People who study the history of Germany in the 30s and 40s are not of neccessity Nazis. People who study entrepreneurship are not of neccessity entrepreneurs. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * People who study how the Nazis "contribute[d] to well-being for individuals, communities, and society” probably are Nazis. 03:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)TFD (talk)
 * Nothing in the refs say "contribute[d] to well-being for individuals, communities, and society” Where are you getting that? Capitalismojo (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that some sort of Original Research from primary sources, or what? It's not at the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It is on the United Negro College Fund website page for the UNCG/Koch Scholars program. TFD (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So that would be original research from primary sources. Got it. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The question that started it off...Does any ref talk about this donation to the United Negro College Fund as "political"? Answer, per above, is apparently "No". Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Using primary sources is allowed by "no original research", it is only novel interpretations that are not allowed. TFD (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Such as the grants being "poitical"? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They clearly are political - read the source. I find it ironic that you think that "libertarian views" are non-political, they merely represent what everyone thinks, then crusade to make sure people agree with them.  TFD (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the UNCF ref says anything about "libertarian" or "views" or "politics" or "policy". So, no, it is not "clearly" political. It is not politcal at all. That fails verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Organizations Section
The sections on Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity seem to have a couple of issues. First off, the link to the Politico.com source (http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=70&threadid=4355176) doesn't take me to the actual article. Is anyone else having this problem? If this article is no longer available, then new sources need to be added. Secondly, the Freedom Partners piece in regards to Tea Party funding is taking material from multiple sources in order to make a statement. See WP:SYNTHESIS. From Wikipedia policy, "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I have read through the sources cited in this section and do not necessarily see where it explicitly states that 236$ million dollars has gone to organizations such as the Tea Party Patriots.

In addition, per WP:NPOV, there is no mention of any of the other organizations that this money went to. Such as the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee or Generation Opportunity. If some other users could take a look at this that would be great, otherwise I don't see how it is majority view. Thanks. Cheers, Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 18:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * May I ask, did you try to fix the broken url in the ref? Hugh (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would if I could find the original URL to the source that the article is referring to. However that is besides the point - I'm more interested in the WP:SYNTHESIS problem here.   Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 18:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Content removal by Comatmebro
I am opening this section so that can discuss their reasons for deleting this content.- MrX 17:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Comatmebro, but many of the removals were unsourced and disputed appellations applied to existing (linked) organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. Some specifics would be useful.- MrX 20:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "an organization founded by David Koch"
 * Actually, AFP is a spinoff of a spinoff of an organization founded by David Koch
 * "AFP's policy agenda is aligned with the Kochs' business interests."
 * Properly attributed, but there is an independent economist who disagrees. That used to be in the article.
 * "AFP spent $45 million in the 2010 election."
 * Probably AFPF.
 * "... and in my opinion, reduce it to a partisan adjunct to AFP, the activist political group they control."
 * Possibly in the source, but gossip at best, and a BLP violation at worst.
 * (Freedom Partners) "An organization with ties to the Koch brothers"
 * True, but the source isn't reliable for that fact.
 * "amid unusual publicity"
 * unnecessary, probably not in the source, almost meaningless
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of these concerns are addressed nicely in the first paragraph of Americans for Prosperity. Perhaps "founded" should be changed to "funded"?
 * I don't object to replacing Ed Crane's quote with third-party analysis.
 * Freedom Partners sources:
 * - MrX 00:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking a look at this page as well. From my initial look, the same NPOV issues are present that we have dealt with in the past. This edit in question improves the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I gave specific detail in my edit summaries for why the content was removed. Some of the content removed was not supported by reliable sources, or didn't have sources supporting it at all. In regards to NBC News -- that bit was deleted not because the source was unreliable, but because that piece of information had nothing to do with the political activities of the Koch brothers.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 02:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What are the specific concerns related to the POV tag in the Americans for Prosperity section?

RFC on applicability and enforcement of BLP policy regarding content on this page.
There is a relevant discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard on applicability and enforcement of BLP policy regarding content on this page. --Elvey(t•c) 02:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment notice: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election from Koch-related funds
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an update to the request for comment and a request for wider participation. The RfC question asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to the funding section of a political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. The main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The discussion of the RfC centers on the due weight of investigative journalism into the sources of funding of a political advocacy group that is generally not legally required to disclose their funders. Attention from uninvolved editors with some experience with articles on political advocacy groups, and with the appropriate application of WP:DUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:COATRACK, is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. This request for comment will probably be closing next week, so please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I hit the wrong button; however, the thread should be removed (not archived) as highly biased canvassing.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity are welcome. By most of us. Thanks! Hugh (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our due weight content policy remain central to the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVAS Spamming and excessive cross-posting.: Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it.
 * Campaigning: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the level of campaigning and canvassing is quite egregious. I particularly find the posting on Citizens United to be out of scope, especially when you consider that Hugh conspicuously failed to post the RFC notice at WikiProject Conservatism, one of the four WikiProjects AFP is currently a part of. I actually think the Citizens United posting, in which three different editors have attempted to undo the canvassing (he has reverted it all three times) is edit warring, and I think a posting at the edit warring noticeboard may be in order as the bad behavior only seems to be escalating. I'll note the irony that despite all of the canvassing, it looks like the RFC will not go Hugh's way. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity are welcome. By most of us. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How would you non-POV the addition of the Koch's spy activities I added, which was pretty neutral, considering?
This is what I added:

"On 18 November, 2015, it was revealed that the Koch Brothers are operating their own spy network – operating out of Arlington, Virginia – seeking out their "liberal opponents", in an effort to disrupt liberal activities, and reshape American life. The staff consists of 25 employees, which include a CIA analyst. "

The words are not really my own, but came from the article which reported straight from the sources. So? Please address your perceived POV. Knowledge Battle 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For one thing, "spy" is POV (especially in the heading), and that word is not used anywhere in the citation. Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * this link to the New Yorker article "Do the Kochs Have Their Own Spy Network?", may be useful to you. Mojoworker (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Criminal justice reform section
I added a paragraph on The Koch's and various right-wing "think tanks" who have been pushing to make it harder to prosecute white collar crimes, citing The Huffington Post. The New York Times is also reporting this. This is hardly undue information and deserves mention in this section of the article, although one biased editor is making accusations this constitutes POV and reverted it, which is utter nonsense. I'm restoring the section given that the NY Times is also reporting this, and adding it as a citation.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Be more civil in your dealings here. It is your edits that constitute a POV. Until you can present this information in a neutral fashion it will be removed. Do you understand this? Im willing to assume good faith and explain it to you if you are confused. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - it is one thing to explain and add this information in a neutral fashion, in a way that does not imply bias. However, the information as it read did not necessarily do this.  Like the above-user has already mentioned, there are ways to execute this which are explained through Wikipedia's policy.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. I rewrote the section for neutrality. Speaking of POV, this section looked like a puff piece prior to my additions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored and reworded some of the neutral material you excised, and welcome comment by all involved – either here or at WP:NPOVN if necessary. To say that the "source does not support (the) information" is disingenuous at best. You guys ought to AGF and not throw a bunch of Wiki–mnemonics at C.J. like he's some n00b. It's you guys that are the Johnny-come-latelies, only having been here since 2012. Mojoworker (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from accusatory tones and insulting terminology. Especially when you are by far the more inexperienced editor. Your edits border on POV. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Political activities of the Koch brothers. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/Foundations.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another 'libertarian' organisation
Is the article in Wired KOCH BROTHERS ARE CITIES' NEW OBSTACLE TO BUILDING BROADBAND reporting on activities by Taxpayers Protection Alliance by Susan Crawford a blog or by a reporter and edited? I think a number of other references on the page are okay and they seem to have been involved in a number of similar attacks on communal efforts. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have useful content
even if people don't want to use it as a source. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

James M. Buchanan, ALEC, & Constitutional Convention
HOW does a page exist called "Political Activities of the Koch Brothers," and yet there is no mention of their support of ALEC, their adherence to, and implementation of the ideas of James M. Buchanan, as well as their moves to promote a new Constitutional Convention in order to drastically alter the political and economic course of America? Have their minions managed to completely whitewash Wikipedia to cover their tracks? Gil gosseyn (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , It isn't there because no one has added it in a neutral way with reliable sources to verify the information. All it takes is one editor who is interested in adding the information to dig up the reliable sources and summarize what they say.  Since you appear to be interested you can add it yourself.  ~ GB fan 11:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IS there a neutral way to describe the attempted subversion of the Constitution, as well as the destruction of the environment in order to further enrich themselves by allowing the oil, gas, and coal industries to operate unrestricted? Gil gosseyn (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

State facts, with reliable sources, as dispassionately as possible. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:D5B1:CA70:49E8:49C5 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)