User talk:Balloonman/draft

Ok, I have taken the request to review this discussion seriously. When I was first approached on my talk page, I wasn't sure about getting involved, but when I saw Susan's comment, that I was "cool" and thus had the respect of both "sides" of the controversy, I decided to take this a little more seriously. I decided to look at this as if I were closing a controversial RfC/AFD. To address Susan's concerns, the limit of involvement here dealt with a single BLP concern that I removed because it wasn't adequately sourced. As soon as a valid source was provided, I no longer cared about the statement---which caught Malke's attention. That being said, I am not a BLP fanatic. There are others who know and understand the policy better than myself. I've spent over four hours reviewing the articles and links provided here and elsewhere.

Basically, they boil down to two articles. The first being an article on playboy.com which has since been removed as potentially libel---the author of that article then attempts to paint the removal as being strong armed by Koch. Playboy, unlike other adult magazines, has garnered a reputation as a reliable source and it likes to be somewhat controversial. Based upon their reputation, I personally find it unlikely that they would kowtow to a legal threat unless the legal threat has legs. This means that all of the other sources are relying upon and reciting the New Yorker article. The New Yorker tends to be a liberal source but is deemed to be a reliable source. So lets take a look at the New Yorker article dealing with the Tea Party Movement. When dealing with Reliable Sources, we have to look at specific examples. While the New Yorker is generally considered to be a reliable source, this particular article and this particular section are ripe with hyperbole and synthesis. Hell, the whole article is written with a strong bias (the next section begins by tying the Koch's to Stalin.) If this were written on Wikipedia, we would have never allowed it to be published!
 * It starts out by saying that there was a fund raiser "Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence." It makes the statement in the manner of trying to say, "but this isn't true."
 * It then cites a Koch spokesperson/Koch denying involvement with the tea parties in 2009. The presentation again is designed to make people question the validity of the statements. Why was the statement made?  Perhaps because of the playboy.com article?
 * It then quotes a White House spokesman making allegations that unnamed billionaires are behind the tea party. But the White House doesn't mention them---but the implication in the article is clear it's the Kochs (if this were Wikipedia we would call that synthesis.)
 * It then quote a "longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups." Political operative is a clearly charged term, but beyond that, what does it matter?  The fact that a person who has at some point in time (since 1994) said something?  That is hardly compelling evidence.
 * The article then spends the next three paragraphs tying the "political operative" to various people, who are thus linked to Koch? Again, if this were Wikipedia, we would have have challenged the inclusion of those paragraphs as WP:UNDUE.  The author is trying to draw lines and create an impression based upon a person who used to work for an organization that at one time had connections to Koch?
 * The article then talks about Americans for Prosperity and how that group has supported Tea Party movements... it does not show that the tea party has accepted their advice or guidance. Rush Limbaugh regularly offers up advice to the Democrats, that does not mean that the Democrats recognize Rush.  The KKK, Black Panthers, Christian Coalition, Rainbow Coalition, ACORN routinely offer advice to various parties and might have voter registrations.  That does not prove a connection or tie-in.  Again, the connection here is flimsy at best.
 * The article then states, "The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs." Again, Wikipedia would have called that WP:NPOV and unsupported.
 * The most daming material comes from, "Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis." Bartlett has some highly critical words for Koch.  But Bartlett was fired from the NCPA, which means that he might not be an objective source on the subject.
 * It then cites an unnamed "Republican campaign consultant" who says that the Koch's started the Tea Party. As pointed out elsewhere, the Tea Party isn't a single group.
 * The article then says the Koch's declined to respond "a prominent New York public-relations executive who is close with the Kochs put forward two friends..."
 * Finally, the section tying the Koch's to the Tea Party, cite a Democratic political strategist who decries the Koch's as being the "epicenter" of the anti-Obama movement. Ok.  Let's suppose they are.  Does that draw a line to funding the Tea Party?