Talk:Koch network/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Fork

Clear POV fork which actually is full of copyvios from Mayer et al. Collect (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fork of... what? Much of the content is rejected for inclusion at Koch Family Foundations, and there is (AFAIK) no existing page which summarises the family's political activities. The text is largely copied from existing pages or old versions of Koch Family Foundations, so any copyvios (such as?) have been transferred thusly. Rd232 ^talk 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am curious if there are any analogous pages? People like George Soros and Peter Lewis on the left have comparable engagement in US politics. Richard Mellon Scaife has been compared to Koch. The only comparable page I can find is George Soros conspiracy theories. Thoughts? MBMadmirer (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, are there analogous cases? You cite individuals, whose activities are obviously handled in their own bios (eg George_Soros#Political_donations_and_activism), though they may be spun off WP:SUMMARY-style in the usual way if necessary. By contrast, the way in which the activities of the different members of the Koch family overlap, as individuals and via their company and via their foundations, makes a single page to bring these together (as some sources do) a different proposition than discussion of each of those separately in their own entries. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that. For example Soros Fund Management (the company) gave money to 527s, their PAC gave money to candidates, the various foundations associated with him give money to things. Because these are two brothers, it is a whole different category? That seems like a stretch. If anything the closest analogy is the George Soros conspiracy theories where crazy people over-project for political reasons onto people. MBMadmirer (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're getting at, but I have no objection in principle to Political activities of George Soros, if that helps any. Rd232 ^talk 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Clear copyvio of Mayer. Material already in Koch Industries, David Koch, Charles Koch, Fred Koch, Koch family, Americans for Prosperity, Koch Family Foundations, Politics of global warming (United States), Tea Party movement, and Richard Fink. Seems more than enough places on WP for the opinions of Mayer, no? 10 articles all with her opinion that the Kochs are evil incarnate. Collect (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename to "Mayer's view of the Koch family"? I don't see it as copyvios, but just WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE violations. (And, if deleted, the material added here should not be returned to the articles it was copied from without due consideration of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and relevance.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the article needs expansion - WP:IMPERFECT; but it's not like it's based on a single source. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article needs contraction, removing "information" and sources which clearly violate WP:BLP. I removed 2 of the references to Mayer's interview as being clearly her opinion, but Rich's article is an Op-Ed, which is not reliable for questions of fact, only (at best) of notability. I haven't gone through the rest of the references for credibility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, those same issues are strewn across various related articles; that's inevitable when the subject of the article touches on so many things! Bringing them all together in one place allows all this material to be considered in the appropriate wider perspective, and improved, and the resulting improvements later carried over to related articles. It would be easier not to bother, and just leave everything to simmer quietly, but this will ultimately produce higher quality. The different context, for instance, can encourage a more scholarly and less personalistic approach, focussing on facts and their significance. Mayer may have brought this to public attention, but there are certainly other sources. It needs a lot of work, though. Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

10 articles on Soros? I doubt it. The same stuff is being peddled in 10 articles here - and it is all opinion in any case. Collect (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"it is all opinion in any case" - I'm going to nominate Charles Koch co-founding the Cato Institute (sourced to Cato) as my black swan. Rd232 ^talk 20:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we should have a third party source.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For that? Not really. Rd232 ^talk 21:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

<--(OD)Most of this stuff is word for word what is in other Koch related articles. The only things that arent in the other articles are things that were rejected for either POV reasons or because they are mere opinions being given undue weight. This article is a clear POV fork, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked before, and was given no answer: a fork of what?. I don't fear an AFD, do it if you must. Rd232 ^talk 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A fork of other Koch articles> You hit the nail on the head above when you said that most of this material was rejected from other Koch articles, if the material was rejected for NPOV reasons, then creating an article and trying to include them here makes this a POV fork. Bonewah (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"A fork of other Koch articles" - that's weak. Anyway the material was being challenged more for relevance than NPOV (though there are NPOV issues with parts of the material too - but certainly not the topic) at Koch Family Foundations, not entirely incorrectly, hence it was moved here. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The only parts of this article that look substantially different than the other Koch articles are the Jane Mayer stuff and the Greenpeace stuff, and even that isnt that much different. None of the other Koch articles are so long as to require a breakout, and creating an article just for the purpose of including a certain POV is a POV fork. Look, if editors object to the endless inclusion of Jane Mayer's opinion in other Koch articles, why would it be any different in this article? Bonewah (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This should clearly be deleted. Not only is it offensive to label the entire Koch family as having the same political views when they don't all of this material is retreaded elsewhere. Let's call this what it is: a politically motivated fork. If you look, here http://planetsave.com/2011/01/29/greenpeace-crashes-koch-brothers-secret-party, and here http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/29/liberals-plan-to-uncloak-the-koch-brothers/ and here http://67.59.172.92/article/Local_News/Local_News/Conservative_Conference_Slated_as_Opposition_Groups_Plan_Protest/74310. This page was clearly created to coincide with the liberal protest. This is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletefeader (talk • contribs)

I don't think it labels the Koch family as having the same views: yes, the title is about the "koch family", but "activities" could well include liberal and conservative members of it doing opposite things, and the article itself makes it pretty clear which individuals are doing what. I'm not opposed to suggestions on renaming or improvement, but deletion seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. Also, I'm not American, and not aware of any protests. Interesting though - thanks. Rd232 ^talk 07:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't find it at all odd that a POV fork goes on just a few days before a number of liberal and left-leaning groups plan to protest a Koch conference. Please. This should be marked for deletion. Not only is the Mayer article inappropriate, and has been debated ad nauseum over on the other pages, but there is no new material in this story other than a few sections which could be easily added to those other pages. Oh, and I'm not American either, but I do have Google. (Deletefeader (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

I guess it's not entirely coincidental, since that upsurge of interest presumably led to recent edits to Koch Family Foundations, which is how I came back to the topic, with the article popping up on my watchlist. As I already said, I'm British, and not aware of the protests. Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The only honest thing about this (in the sources—I'm not claiming that the editors here are dishonest) is that the radical left finally admits Common Cause is liberal. They (CC) used to claim to be non-partisan. On the other hand, this AfD can't complete before the conference. On yet another hand, this protest is relevant to this (and only this) article, and, if we can find a reliable source for it, it should be here. I'm looking forward to the arrest of the protestors and seizure of the Greenpeace blimp.

I think there's enough real sources (not including opinion and Op-Ed columns, even in nominally reliable sources) for a general discussion of the Kochs' political activity, although much of the material was removed from other articles relating to the Kochs for WP:NPOV and WP:OR reasons, rather than for irrelevance. If it was for irrelevance, it should be moved to a relevant article, such as this one.. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

<--Can you give me an example of something that is irrelevant elsewhere, but relevant here? Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the "Significance" section combines Koch Family Foundations and other organizations the Kochs have funded, and possibly have current involvement. (It wasn't easy to find, I agree.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If thats the only thing you can find, i would say its a fairly weak reed on which to stand. Further, although i dont have access to the sources listed in that section, the title of the main article "Degenerate Democracy: The Neoliberal and Corporate Capture of America's Agenda" does not strike me as a particularly neutral and reliable source. This gets to the heart of the matter, if it turns out this material is Neutral, reliably sourced and not OR, then there is no reason why it couldnt be included in the Koch family foundation article or the various Koch articles or both. If it has a problem with any of Neutrality, RS or OR, then making a new article to house them does not solve any of those problems. Bonewah (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Public Land & Resources Law Review - it just doesn't sound like an WP:RS, does it... Oh but it's got a provocative title and you don't like what it's saying, so I guess it doesn't count. Rd232 ^talk 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you assume some good faith please? I already said I havent read it, and that if it turns out to be OK then i would have no problem seeing it included, what more do you want? If you have access to a digital copy, let me know and we can arrange a way so i can look at it and form a more informed opinion. Bonewah (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If you enable your email I can email you the article. Rd232 ^talk 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Add sources mostly from Jan.2011 ... ?

• "The Kochs fight back" by Kenneth P. Vogel February 2, 2011
• Protesters Take On Conservative Retreat
• Hundreds march outside Koch brothers' retreat: The billionaire conservatives hold a gathering of elected officials, political donors and strategists. Outside, liberals hold signs condemning 'corporate greed.' 25 are arrested for trespassing.
• Protesters decry conservative desert retreat

99.181.156.210 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Some) good sources for the protests. Probably still doesn't support what Dan. was adding to the article, but the protest, itself, can be noted in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

New article: "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros." — By Andy Kroll| Fri Feb. 18, 2011 9:12 AM PST Mother Jones [1] We should summarize the relevant points.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mother Jones? Reliable? Those two words don't belong in the same paragraph. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RM material asserting "in fact" etc. sourced to Mayer. That source is sufficiently used, to say the least, and stating opinions as fact is contrary to WP:BLP and Mother Jones is opinion citable as opinion only. Collect (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio-link in "Free Enterprise Seminars" section

My claim is that the link, itself, is an unauthorized scan of the seminar announcement, and hence probably itself a copyright violation. I'm not saying our material is a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OpEd

OpEds are never reliable sources in a BLP context. They may be used to support notability of a meme, but not to support "facts". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the NPR source, that may have been a mistake. Respectable (and reliable) newpapers frequently have commentary columns which are not reliable, and I don't know if the NPR source is one of those. I have doubts about Mayer and Zernike being reliable, but the present consensus is that that are, in spite of non-factual polemical statements contained in the articles. OpEds, however, are not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are pro-Koch OpEds, I'll tag those, also. (In fact, one of the statements attributed to Rich is pro-Koch.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

See the note on the Mother Jones article, above. It appears I'm not the only one who thinks it isn't reliable. The only "right-wing" source quoted here (aside from a Koch Industries spokesperson) is Reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You're making some categorical assertions. According to whom is Mother Jones not a reliable source? Where does it say that OpEds can never be used in any form about living people?   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OpEds can never be used to support the truth of the statements asserted, only their notability. And Mother Jones does not have a reputation for fact-checking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OpEds are reliable sources for the opinions of those who write them, and may be used as sources for those opinions, with attribution. According to the article, "Mother Jones has been nominated for 23 National Magazine Awards and has won six times, including for General Excellence in 2001,[1] 2008,[2] and 2010.[3]" It is a partisan source, but it can be used with attribution.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep or Merge

If the topic is merged, the information should be placed on ALL pages dealing with the Kochs or Koch Industries, otherwise the article should be kept.

If we accept the opinion that mainstream sources like The New Yorker, NPR, The NY Times, The LA Times are not appropriate, then how many Wikipedia pages would have to be completely revised or deleted altogether? Is Fox News a valid source, after being shown again again to be wildly inaccurate or just plain dishonest, even in its programming presented as news?

Nothing I have read in the talk on this article has presented evidence that the article is forked, at least not to a greater degree than hundreds of other Wikipedia articles.

Finally, without naming specific user names, it seems like there is a group of contributors who check articles having anything to do with the Kochs every day. These users always delete information about political donations to right-wing advocacy groups or, if the deletion is undone enough times, question the legitimacy of the sources used to document these donations. What is the motivation for Wikipedia activity on these pages? If you want a similar page on Soros or Peter Lewis, then create one. But the absence of comparable articles on liberal politically-motivated financial contributors is no reason to delete this one. --Dan.sampey (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps these unamed editors are motivated by exactly what they claim, that the sourcing isnt legitimate, or the emphasis undue? Did you ever stop to consider that actually mean what they say on the article's talk page? Bonewah (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The source argument is a non-issue - as stated above, that's an argument you can't win. And emphasizing 30 years of political influence by the Kochs is undue? or unwanted? Many would say that what is undue is the influence, not the exposure. You can't pick and choose which facts you like and which you don't - let's put them all on the table. You can't describe a source as illegitimate just because you don't agree with it. Why so afraid of a little light? It's not necessary to name specific contributors - they know who they are. How many will be traced to the Koch payroll? As for me, it's my last comment - here it's midnight and I work for a living. --Dan.sampey (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the source argument is an argument you can't win. An NPR interview of a — "journalist" — is not a reliable source, except for that journalist's opinions. And we still don't have a reliable source about the picketing of their latest political event, except for fringe reporters in fringe publications without fact-checking. Your latest article-space edit in Koch family used Dayen @ alternet for sourcing two "facts" which are not plausible, nor reported in mainstream media; and one irrelevant fact (which should only be in Koch Industries, if anywhere) from Mayer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fringe = pejorative label created in the 1970's representing a viewpoint conservatives don't like. The phrase today is "alternative." And isn't it funny how sources are suddenly not "reliable" when the facts they present - facts like on camera statements from the parties involved (like David Koch) - are embarrassing to the right? The Kochs have been exposed. All the Wikipedia deletions and circular arguments in the world can't stop the story of their long term covert manipulation of government officials, including Supreme Court justices, from becoming more and more widespread. Now it is "fringe" publications; tomorrow even the corporate mainstream media won't be able to cover up the facts. Wikipedia policy is for contributors not to second guess others' good faith. But at some point, with bands of contributors constantly hovering around certain topics and articles, the motivation for such collaboration really must be questioned. Is the ideology so important, or is there something more deceitful going on...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan.sampey (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What's going on is that you're finding blogs to support your point of view, and we need organizations with a reputation for fact-checking. I admit to having some of the same political leanings as the Kochs, but almost all of my edits are removing information sourced to unreliable sources. As for on-camera "interviews", have you seen Jay Leno recently? He frequently conducts "interviews" by taking segments from an existing interview (with, say, Obama), and intercutting his questions. Is there any reason to believe Koch's interview was not so constructed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Grasping at straws - the video interview with David Koch which is cited (if it hasn't been deleted again) in footnote 7 of the article Koch family, a video in which he admits affiliation with Americans for Prosperity is one continuous shot, no edits. I suppose the next excuse will be that digital video can be doctored. And by the way, who's the "we" in "we need organizations ..."? Are you presuming to speak for the entire Wikipedia community? Or is it "we" as in the few with the "same political leanings as the Kochs," if this rather benign description is to be taken at face value?

"What's going on" is that for whatever reason small but dedicated groups of Wikiusers are standing watch over certain types of articles to make sure nothing potentially embarrassing gets in. The only question is why. And it seems that for collectives of articles on figures or organizations that are related in some way (for example the Kochs and their organizations), there are different groups of these security guards of the status quo. Sorry, but I don't see claims about inappropriate sources or deletions made when neutral or favorable information is added to these articles. Whose to say that these "coincidences" about Wiki editorship won't be exposed, even if, for now, only on "fringe" media ...? --Dan.sampey (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dan - The requirement for Reliable Sources isn't optional on Wikipedia and sources like that video certainly don't qualify. I wouldn't try to make an assertion about someone else's motives, but certainly many editors enforce that rule when it suits their political biases. The good news is that Wikipedia still works: That political competition improves the quality of the article for the reader by eliminating poorly sourced information. The good news for you is that there is now plenty of coverage of the Koch's in Reliable Sources, so you can probably find a good cite for much of that info. And if you see favorable information that is based on non-RS's, you should remove it! guanxi (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well with the AFD concluded, I'm still fine with a merge (probably along with Koch Family Foundations) to Koch family, with the latter article then providing a wider context which might make people feel better about talking about Charles/David/Fred's political activities. However it probably should be discussed first rather than boldly done, given the recent AFD. Rd232 ^talk 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Im also fine with a merge, id rather have all the information in one place than spread out over half a dozen pages.Bonewah (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed unsourced favorable information about the Kochs, even though WP:BLP suggests that only controversial information need be removed immediately. You (Dan) still have not added credible sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

posted to wrong thread?guanxi (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Dan's comment above that the editors removing his rants are pro-Koch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge is fine. Let's just be sure not to lose info and that it's easily found from related pages (e.g., David Koch). Unfortunately, complex reality doesn't always map well to Wikipedia. guanxi (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not really fine with a merge. This topic quite specifically is notable, as the AfD found. The general page on the family should just mention the political controversy, and it be expanded here--this will serve to isolate the problems. Merges is circumstances like this tend to lead to loss of content, when what is really needed is expansion. But if there is a merge, it should include the entire contents of the page, & be watched to make sure it does not get gradually removed. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-add Climate change consensus

Re-add Climate change consensus which seems to have been deleted by User:Arthur Rubin non-sensibly. 99.181.136.42 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin, please don't Wikipedia:INSULT. Your Condescendence is insulting too. Please watch your tone with words such as nonsense. You don't have a monopoly on "sense": Understanding, Awareness, or Common sense. 99.181.156.205 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

[[climate change consensus|climate change]] [[climate change skeptics|skeptic groups]]

is absurd.

[[climate change skeptic]] groups

is at least plausible, although it presumes that what Greenpeace means by "climate change skeptic" is related to what we mean by it. I think the entire phrase should be delinked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Greenpeace calls any group that has ever expressed skepticism of AGW a climate change skeptic group, which i think is way over the mark here. I also think the entire phrase should be delinked to avoid us adding a meaning that is not in the source. Bonewah (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How is the meaning in the source different from the linked article? How many different meanings of "climate change skeptic" can we document?   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We use it to indicate someone doesn't support the general idea of AGW. They use it, at least, to indicate anyone who doubts it would be worse than the worst published scenario. That might be a difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Could you quote the text you're referring to?   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why remove climate change skeptic or Climate change skepticism (denialism) also? 99.181.155.167 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We know Greenpeace has different understanding of other words and phrases we all know, such as terrorism. Still, I might accept [[climate change skeptic], but your [[climate change consensus|climate change]] [[climate change skeptic|skeptic group]] is really absurd, as are most of your links.

There is also the point that all we know is that Greenpeace asserts that the Kochs donated $48M to groups which they call "climate change skeptic groups". We do not know that we (or even, any rational person) would consider the groups "climate change skeptic groups". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what bias we may have, for we cannot reinterpret what the sources say. We need to repeat what Greenpeace calls it, and give the source. People will interpret it themselves on the basis of Greenpeace's known positions; anyone who reads the page will likely know that they do have a particular position, & if they want it explained that's why there is (or should be) a link to the group. Hypertext can do wonderful things, like free us from the need to repeat everything. The page just reports what people think, & does not argue over the issues. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if Greenpeace uses the phrase to mean something not in our article, we can't reinterpret it, but we can and should refuse to make an incorrect wikilink. Especially the one the 99.* anon wanted to use, [[climate change consensus|climate change]] [[climate change skeptic|skeptic groups]], but if we know that Greenpeace has a different meaning for "climate change skeptic" than we use at climate change skeptic, we shouldn't link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User:99.119.131.117 made Climate change skeptic = skeptic groups in

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 asserts that between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to climate change skeptic groups, exceeding even the donations of ExxonMobil, and nearly $10 million to the Mercatus Center, $3.3 million to the Heritage Foundation, over $5 million to the Cato Institute (all 1997-2008), and $5 million to Americans for Prosperity (2005–2008). Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

while User:Arthur Rubin removed that edit and delinked Climate change consensus with climate change in the above section, from some other editors edit also. 99.181.146.109 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: how about "organizations skeptical of climate change"? Rd232 ^talk 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems an improvement. We could even link [[climate change consensus|climate change]] under those circumstances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming? + Sources

A possible solution could be to rename this article Political activities of the Koch Brothers or Political activities of the Koch Brothers (David & Charles) as they seem to be the real issue here. There are scores of sources that discuss the political advocacy and financial largess that has been donated by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch known colloquially as the "Koch Brothers" (although yes they have 2 other brothers Bill & Frederick who are not involved in large scale political advocacy). There of course should be an article on the political work of the two "Koch brothers". As for sources, below are just a few that discuss the "Koch Brothers" as a notable and influential political entity ...
- The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win audio story by NPR
- The Billionaire Koch brothers war against Obama cover story by The New Yorker
- How Important Are The Koch Brothers? by The New Republic
- Koch Brothers Have Given More Than $100 Million to Right-Wing Causes video by Democracy Now!
- The Koch brothers invade California by Salon magazine
- Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law by The LA Times
- The Koch Brothers and the Tea Parties by The Washington Independent
- Schwarzenegger vs. Big Oil and The Billionaire Koch Brothers by Forbes
- The billionaire Koch brothers: Tea Party puppetmasters? by The Week
- Koch brothers to host rightwing politicians and business leaders at California resort by The Guardian
- Koch Industries (Brothers) and Republicans plan ahead by The New York Times
 Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not appropriate. Most of the sources you listed are clear violations of BLP. Democracy Now? LA Times Blog? Really? You are going to use them as a source? Fight it out on the individual brothers' pages. David and Charles Koch do not agree on everything politically and it's inappropriate to put them together. Wikipedians have already vetted most of those sources. This page should be deleted.(PokingTocqueville (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)) — PokingTocqueville (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [2]

Note PokingToqueville was improperly blocked for some time due to a "false positive" on an SPI charge and is now unblocked, but has not returned. No negative connotation should be given as a result to his posts. Collect (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources are a violation on BLP, the blog references a reliable source. Instead of proceeding in a condescending manner try to state your case rationally. McGlockin (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits

Several sources are now reporting that the Koch family hired people to edit Wikipedia articles to whitewash their image, in violation of policy. An anon added a section detailing the accusation, but truthsort (talk · contribs) removed it saying it did not prove the accusation. While there may be cause to wait if-and-until this story is more widely reported, but I don't think we need to wait for "proof," since that is explicitly not a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. If it is verifiable, we should report it. Any thoughts or additional sources which might further verify this claim? -TeaDrinker (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is ThinkProgress (the only source provided, in the paragraph in question) a reliable source? I don't think so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are these sources at? I cannot find any outside of thinkprogress. And this article was written on March 9, which means that its highly unlikely this is going to receive more coverage in the future. Truthsort (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ThinkProgress is a reliable enough source for Wikipedia. I should remind all editors that sock puppetry is a TOS violation. We already know users in this very talk page have been deleted for sock puppetry. It would be naive to think they aren't still lurking and edit warring. Let's find a workable solution to the inclusion of this new realization. McGlockin (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN, but I don't see how ThinkProgress can possibly be a WP:RS for WP:BLP matters, and this alleged Koch-controlled editor is a living person. Even discussing it borders on WP:OUTING. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We might as well use Koch's comments on Jane Mayer in her article as fact, to the extent printable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ThinkProgress is one among a dozen sources that have covered Koch Family involvement in politics. The ThinkProgress article is a continuation on the same storyline. I already checked with WP:RSN, and ThinkProgress is a reliable source. The paragraph needs to be replaced with NPOV language not removed. Also, the only person I singled out was the person already deleted for sock puppetry. McGlockin (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are a dozen sources, then find one with a reputation for accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

They all have a reputation for high accuracy. McGlockin (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, name one. As for ThinkProgress and WP:RSN, there was an assertion in archive 78 that it was reliable, and assertions in archives 19, 33, and 69, that it was not reliable. There really hasn't been a discussion there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, read the entire talk page. Are all these sources unreliable as well?

- Koch Brothers Have Given More Than $100 Million to Right-Wing Causes video by Democracy Now!
- The Koch brothers invade California by Salon magazine
- Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law by The LA Times
- The Koch Brothers and the Tea Parties by The Washington Independent
- Schwarzenegger vs. Big Oil and The Billionaire Koch Brothers by Forbes
- The billionaire Koch brothers: Tea Party puppetmasters? by The Week
- Koch brothers to host rightwing politicians and business leaders at California resort by The Guardian
- Koch Industries (Brothers) and Republicans plan ahead by The New York Times
McGlockin (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think Democracy Now! is unreliable, and I have doubts about the Forbes and LA Times blog, and those of the newpaper articles which are OpEds. But none of those support the claim you (and/or Lee Fang) are making about Wikipedia editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are cherry picking the article sources. This story is a continuation on the story that the Koch brothers spend considerable amounts of money in the political arena, that has already been verified. The blogs you mention all use reliable sources. I already checked with WP:RSN, and ThinkProgress is a reliable source. Just because you don't think it's a reliable doesn't make it unreliable. NPOV language can be used to accurately used to bring to light the facts this article documents. McGlockin (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I read every archive on RSN about TP. No registered editor has ever stated that ThinkProgress is RS in any of them. That said, a quote of an opinion, properly sourced as opinion and stated to be opinion from a source which is not a "blog" in thw WP usage, and is not "self-published" in WP usage may be usable provided it makes no contentious claims per (WP:BLP. BTW, "reliable source" has nothing to do with "reliability" on Wikipedia. It has to do with a source being under editorial control of another entity, and being regarded as primarily accurate for that reason. I realize you are officially a "new editor" still, but please read the policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RSN. There is a bald assertion that ThinkProgress is a reliable source. That doesn't even come close to qualifying as a consensus at RSN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I also read it. Thinkprogess is reliable. 99.169.66.28 (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thinkprogress is a blog, and doesn't seem to have enough status to escape the "blogs are not reliable sources" norm. Anyway, I don't think the MBMAdmirer kerfuffle is notable enough for inclusion, unless possibly it gets a lot more coverage in mainstream sources. Rd232 ^talk 00:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Related discussion (now archived) at Admin Noticeboard section on MBMadmirer & this article. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The user MSMAdmirer isn't the focus of the article. The substance of the article is factual and relevant to the activities of the Koch Family, therefore should be included in some way into this article. 99.169.66.28 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Add links to Global warming controversy and/or Climate change denial as the article only links to Climate change which is indirect.

Add links to Global warming controversy and/or Climate change denial as the article only links to Climate change which is indirect. Should at least link to Global warming, Environmental skepticism, Scientific opinion on climate change, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, or something related to opposition of Climate change mitigation attempts. 108.73.113.161 (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? We should only do it if a reliable source makes the connection, as our articles are not necessarily about the same thing as what the real world talks about. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of The Weekly Standard as a source for facts

I used The Weekly Standard as a source for the fact that Mayer used a "great deal" of research from the Center for American Progress for her lengthy story on the Kochs. We use ideological sources all the time in WP as reliable sources (such as The Huffington Post) and they are upheld as reliable sources at WP:RSN. Having a slant does not automatically disqualify a source. If it did, The New York Times would be disqualified. I'm not using TWS as a source for opinion, but a fact. A fact that is verified by the Center for American Progress itself. Drrll (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Difficult. I think the material should be added, if there was a reliable source. Unfortunately, both liberal and conservative blogs have reported that Obama is not a United States citizen, which would also be a question of fact. Blogs are not reliable sources, except, in some circumstances, where the blogger is reliable per se. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: the article could include "According to Koch Industries ..." text citing their official response to Mayer's article, which would clearly attribute POV regarding a statement about Mayer's sources. Rostz (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agee.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that TWS in general is a reliable source. The fact that the article in question is on a TWS blog is not, in my view, important since WP:IRS grants an important exception for blogs: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." While it is an outlet for opinion, it is also an outlet for news. I am amenable to using either TWS or the Koch Industries official response, mentioned by Rostz, as a source for this, given that the article is about the Koch family. Drrll (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Drrll is correct about the use of the TWS blog. However I disagree with his edit. Is it relevant that some of the research came from the CAP? If so, then give it a sentence of its own and explain why. Better yet, since the Mayer article is so extensive and is directly about this topic it might be worth devoting a few sentences to it, including the background and the responses to it. Just just adding, as an aside, that some research came from CAP isn't helpful to readers.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(Still disagree with citing TWS as a reliable news source; for what it's worth, even the National Review described it as a "conservative journal of opinion", according to the TWS article, which distinguishes it from traditional news sources that delineate news and editorial content. Controversial assertions require high-quality sources.) Rostz (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But is this a controversial assertion? The blog quotes the CAP blog, which makes the same assertion.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The CAP blog isn't a reliable source either. (It also gives undue weight to CAP.) Rostz (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The NeoCon The Weekly Standard? Excerpt from the wp article: Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute. Just curious. 99.19.46.177 (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft addition:

• According to Koch Industries, Mayer's article is based on unqualified and "blatantly and inherently biased" sources and material.

Rostz (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That works for me, although I would include examples, such as the CAP and Greenpeace. Drrll (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done & added. Rostz (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion on Talk:Koch Industries.

Related discussion on Talk:Koch Industries. 99.190.86.252 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unions

I fail to see any relevance whatsoever of the "Unions" section to the "Koch Family." It appears to be a Governor Walker coatrack with no relationship directly in any way to the Koch family. The Koch Family is not the Koch Industries PAC. The Koch Family is not a npc for free enterprise, neatly tucked in, which adsdvocated for a bill -- supported by Walker. Pure, unadulterated coatrack. Collect (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor now attempting to link Koch to Soros

This is an article about the Koch Family involvement in politics, it has nothing to with George Soros. All references to George Soros need to be removed. It's humorous how much the source [3] in question is being validated by the edits on this article. McGlockin (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what you said was a personal attack on me. Further violation will result in the deletion of your account. McGlockin (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Read the old talk pages. Statements were made about the Koch's which applied to a number of others, including Soros. As reliable sources make the statements, they properly belong in the Koch articles (and the Soros articles, if editors do so). See WP:RS. As for making accusations about any editors here, please be well-advised that such is contrary to WP:NPA, WP:WQA and other Wikipedia policies. If you wish to make an accusation, please be explicit with it. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You should be reminded that sock puppetry is a TOS violation.99.169.66.28 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have never run a "sock" I fear you are determined to seek a WQA notice. Are you asserting that I am a "sock" or are you just being a PITA? Collect (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor continues to make baseless connections to Soros. This is unrelated to the political activities of the Koch brothers, and not relevant to this article. Again, this is agenda driven editing, this violates WP:ORIGINAL attempting to link Soros conspiracy theories to legitimate Koch family political activities. 99.169.66.28 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Where a reliable source makes the connection, WP reports what the source says. Collect (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The source isn't making the connection, you are.99.169.66.28 (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the source: "For the left to characterize the Kochs’ efforts in the policy arena as self-interested is to misjudge the extent to which they are motivated by an intellectual belief system,” said the donor, “just as the philanthropic efforts of George Soros and Peter Lewis and others on the left are driven by their very different beliefs.” Sorry to have to point out the article to you. Collect (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says many things. George Soros isn't in the scope of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.66.28 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ACLU Donation

There are claims that Koch donated $20-Million to the ACLU. I removed this since the New York Social Diary can not be considered as a reliable source. http://www.lasocialdiary.com/node/125921.

"Since that post went up, I've been trying to confirm the donation with the Koch people, with the ACLU, and with the authors of those two publications. David Patrick Columbia of New York Social Diary, responded via email to say he can't remember the source of his report, though he did say he's certain that his source was not David Koch or George Soros (who was also named in the report for having given $10 million to the ACLU). I'm still trying to reach the editor of Faces of Philanthropy, which also reported the donation on its profile page for Koch, along with the additional detail of the specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act the donation was intended to help overturn." http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/28/update-on-the-kochs-and-the-ac

ACLU website makes no notice that this "donation" was ever made.

Rumors are not a sound basis for information included in this article. Calicocat (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Politico

This edit deleted material sourced to Politico, calling it "Tons of less then reliable sourcing".[4] Yet the same edit also added material sourced to Politico. So is it a reliable source or not?   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous edit. I have further edited the article to remove the rest of the politico references and more dubious claims. If you want to re-add them please take the time to discuss why this material should be included here before adding it back into the article. Bonewah (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your deletions. I'm not sure what you mean by "dubious", but that's not a Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for gay people

Why doesn't this article discuss the Koch family's efforts in support of LGBT people and LGBT rights? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources on the topic you can add something.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Add "... nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning."

Add "Charles and David Koch are called the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning." http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-berkeley-climate-20110331,0,2472031.story 108.73.113.16 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Koch's opposition to climate change legislation is already noted. At length. Collect (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a major part of their political activities, it should be included. Stop policing this article.99.169.66.28 (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That LA times article only mentions the Kochs in passing, I would not say that it is worth including. Bonewah (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this was deleted. It's a significant assertion about the political activity of the Koch family, the topic of this article. It's relevant, and well-sourced. I'll restore it unless a compelling reason for its omission is given.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Because, as stated above, the Koch's opposition to climate change legislation is already noted at length and the article in question isnt about the Koch's, and only mentions them in passing. Its amazing to me that you can post a reply directly below our rationale for removing something and then claim to not know why that very thing was removed. Bonewah (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for a policy-based reason, not just an argument. The source in question is about a climate-study funded by the Kochs. The comment in question summarizes the extent of the Kochs' activism in this regard. It's a reliable source and relevant content.

This material was also just removed without adequate cause: Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, has criticized the Koch brothers for their use of AFP to create a façade of grass-roots support for their favorite causes, a technique known as astroturfing. ref name="lipton2011"/ What policy reason was there for deleting that?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that everything should be included unless there is a rule that says it shouldnt? If so, I dont agree with that view. Id believe that you should provide your rationale for including something just as we have provided our rationale for its exclusion. Further i think you are trying to wikilawer us to avoid addressing our concerns, basic WP:CONSENSUS requires that you work with us in good faith and take our concerns into account, i dont believe you are doing that. Bonewah (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What are your policy-based concerns? I mostly see edit warring rather than discussion.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have stated and restated my concerns as well as Collect's concerns,if there is any lack of discussion here its your refusal to engage your fellow editors in consensus seeking dialog. Bonewah (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect wrote that "The Koch's opposition to climate change legislation is already noted". However the Roosevelt material goes beyond that, asserting that the Koch's are not just opposed, but are the leading opponents. That's a significant assertion and not contained elsewhere in the article. I don't see any discussion of the Common Cause material.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

<--od The LA Times article isnt about the Koch's, its about a scientist and his research. The article only mentions Koch because he funded part of the scientist's research. If you think we should include mention of the Koch funding of the research, that seems a reasonable discussion to have, but to take a single line out of an article that isnt even about Koch and argue that it should be included because it contains the claim that they are 'leading opponents' is an unbelievably weak reed on which to stand. Remember, reliability depends on context, in this case, the article is about the scientist and his research and so is presumably reliable on that topic. The article isnt about the Koch's and the mere fact that they are described in such a way is totally irrelevant. Bonewah (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

New source

This should be a fertile source. (Haven't read it though.). Found via The Guardian. Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP and COAT issues

The recent sections of contention are problematic to say the least. The Free State Project is a clear WP:COAT issue and a severe WP:BLP issue. Unproven allegations have no place within BLP articles and this is nothing more than an attempt to smear the Kock family. The wording itself is a clear red flag regarding BLP problems.

The Margot Roosevelt quote is in a tangential article, and her personal smear regarding the Koch's is undue weight ad hominen attack against the Koch's. Just because some non-notable writer attacks the Koch's doesn't make it notable. It is a clear BLP violation.

The NY Times Atrotufing claim is almost the same as the Margot Roosevelt quote, albeit from a more well known source. In any case this claim is being presented as a factual statement (ie, the Koch's are creating atroturf organizations through AFP. This is nothing more than a unproven democratic talking point in an attempt to attack the Koch's. It is a NPOV as it is presented. This part could be readded, but re-worded to not make statements of a factual nature. Arzel (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Roosevelt quote is directly about the Koch's activism on climate change issues. How is it a BLP violation? Which section of that policy forbids including well-sourced, neutrally presented material that's relevant to the article in question?   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The information was properly sourced, so it can say they are idiots and be proper content. Arzel, you need to read BLP again. "Unsourced" negative content would be problematic, but that's not the case here. I would have no objections to restoring the material if opinions are attributed. That should take care of the only somewhat legitimate objection. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing is necessary for inclusion, but not sufficient. You guys are totally ignoring the concept of neutrality and undue weight, to say the least. I agree with Arzel that this article is being used as a coat rack, a way of including every negative assertion, every crackpot claim and theory and bad opinion about the Koch's. The Roosevelt quote is a glaring example of this, you cherry-pick the one line that you like out of an article that isnt even about the Kochs and stick it in this article with a "X person says Y about Koch" along with a host of other "this person thinks this and this person says this" etc etc. This isnt the Political activities of Koch, its a Criticism of Koch by another name. Bonewah (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A "coatrack" is an article which purports to be about one topic but is mostly about another topic. I don't see how comments about the Kochs' political activities could qualify as coatrack material.   Will Beback  talk  02:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This article purports to be about the Kochs' political activities, but is actually about every negative opinion, criticism and theory editors can dig up. For example, one could make the argument that funding a noted global warming skeptic is a Koch political activity, but you focus instead on the author's opinion that the Kochs' are "nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning". Instead of facts about the Kochs' political activities, you are using this article as a delivery system for opinions that suit your POV. Bonewah (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If those are views connected to the Kochs' political activities, then they aren't "coatracks". If there are other views about their political activities that aren't expressed then we can add those too. Also, please assume good faith. WP:AGF. Making claims about the motives of other editors is uncivil.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonewah, Will Beback is correct. You're misusing "coatrack". There is nothing of that happening, in fact the opposite. Exactly the part of the quote that is relevant and on-topic for THIS article is what's chosen. It's relevant. That's how we write articles. We document the facts and opinions that are expressed in RS and we put them in articles. It's definitely not a violation of NPOV or UNDUE to include what's on-topic. Keeping it out is whitewashing and we're not allowed to do that. Anything that's about the political activities of the Koch family is on-topic, and NPOV requires that criticism also be included. If it is kept out, then NPOV is being violated. As to their funding of a global warming skeptic, sure that's on-topic here. Put it in if it's in a RS! Go for it! At the same time any criticism of them for doing it is also supposed to be here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Weight is the overiding principle for what should be included. Simply being in a RS is not the ultimate criteria for inclusion. NPOV does not require minor criticism to be given undue weight to acheive NPOV. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Free State Project section is a coatrack. The article is not about the Koch's, it is about the Free State Project. The author alleges that the Koch's are connected. This is presented in typical WP:COAT fashion. Article about Y. Y is accused of being connected to X. X is doing this. This article is the Coatrack for the Coat of X. Not to mention that these are unfounded allegations in violation of WP:BLP. As for Roosevelt. Who is she? Is her opinion notable? She has an opinion, thousands of people have an opinion. Her opinion just happens to present an ad hominen against the Koch's. Thus we have a non-notable person attacking the Koch's, ie BLP violation and undue weight. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is this section? Those words aren't in the article. As for Roosevelt, it makes no difference. She doesn't have to be notable. It's an article (not a blog comment from a reader) in a RS, the LA Times. It's the RS that's notable. That article mentions the Koch brothers several times, and even links to an article about them which would also be a RS for information, possibly for this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. The source which was being used for the Free State Project is primarily about the FSP. The section is not currently in this article because I removed it as a coat and blp violation. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes someone's comments have to be notable to justify inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The mere fact that a comment appears in print somewhere does not automatically qualify it for inclusion. The minimum threshold for including something into Wikipedia is 'does including this expand the reader's understanding of the subject?' I dont believe that Roosevelt's comment does that in any way, and neither of you have attempted to explain why her comments enhance the article here, you merely declare that its notable, much like you simply declare that its inclusion is neutral and not undue. Simply saying that it is so does not make it so. Look, negative commentary is fine, so long as its actually relevant to the subject at hand. This article isnt simply a collection of everything anyone has ever said about the Kochs' political activities, show me that this particular comment matters, that isnt too much to ask. Bonewah (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt's opinion is just that, her opinion. Editors seem to be of the theory if someone presents their opinion that that opinion has to be included. As Bonewah states that is not the case. Yes, V has been met, but you still have weight concerns. Roosevelt is not notable, her opinion is not notable. Presentation of her non-notable opion is a violation of undue weight. Using undue weight on her non-notable opinion to attack the Koch's is a violation IMO of BLP. Arzel (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must say the two of you work well together to block any criticism. This matter is pretty serious, considering we've been dealing with paid socks who have been doing the same thing. An SPI uncovered a whole office of workers editing from the same IP and paid by a contract with the Koch brothers to edit the Koch articles, as well as Facebook, Twitter, etc.. I'm not saying you're part of that group, but you're certainly doing the same thing, and even more brazenly and openly. At least the IP socks were more discrete in their policy violations.

Will Beback, can you arrange an investigation? We also have other experienced editors who obviously do the same thing, including one admin. We need a lot more eyes on this situation. This needs to be dealt with at a much higher level since the Koch brothers are known to use big money to manipulate information about themselves, and their influence is felt everywhere, including here. There is so much criticism in RS, yet it's not allowed here using lots of subjective interpretations and wikilawyering. We don't write hagiographies here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiring PR firms to edit Wikipedia

I removed this whole section as the citations did not back up the claims being made. The politico article did not mention Wikipedia, MBMadmirer, or any of the claims in the section. The SPI cited was inconclusive and also did not back up the bulk of the claims being made. Further, Wikipedia itself should not be used as, at a minimum, it would be a primary source. Additionally, i see no indication that the whole MBMadmirer SPI drama is actually important enough to include in the article. Bonewah (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Time for a deletion debate

Friends,

This page already has an obvious [[5]] violation.

It appears that this page was only created to coincide with well-publicized ads for a protest of the Koch brothers' political activities. On other Koch pages, Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, we have already had these same debates about what should be included. The Koch family is a very large one. Do you mean instead the Koch brothers? Well, there are four of them and they all have differing views. And what, if anything, does their deceased father's alleged views have to do with anything?

It looks like we just have one edit-warring administrator on this page. What say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletefeader (talk • contribs) 10:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is redundant. All of the material is covered by the individual entries of David and Charles. It is legitimate to have pages for each of their instituates and their company, and for each of the Kochs, but I don't see much use for this page other than a clearinghouse for people to find things to complain about. If there were a "political activities of George Soros" page, I would argue that it's redundant, and all the information should be relocated to the Soros main page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisor2011 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I endorse this line of thinking. The guy who created the page admits that there is no precedent for the page. Given the WP:NPOV issue, the timing, the lack of precedent, and the fact that all of this is duplicative, I think it is fair to say that this should be deleted. MBMadmirer (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I, too, endorse this line of thinking. The sources down below are similarly inappropriate. Wikipedia has already vetted those pages on the individual brothers' pages. We've got a POV fork here, gents. It seems that some editors and administrators would rather come here than talk it out on individual Koch brothers' pages. For that reason alone, this should be deleted.(PokingTocqueville (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

NB User:Deletefeader and User:PokingTocqueville have been blocked as sockpuppets of User:Heinleinscat. Rd232 ^talk 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Both unblocked due to "false positive" and no negative connotations should be applied to either. Collect (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of this article, The Koch family's involvement has been covered by primarly liberal sources, yes. But did you expect this to be covered on Fox News? Or the Cato Institute? Why do we accept Cato without question, when it is directly founded and financed by the Koch Family? There is clearly a double standard. This article should not be deleted, but it should be expanded. McGlockin (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Related discussion (now archived) at Admin Noticeboard section on MBMadmirer & this article. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Margot Roosevelt

There are too many separate issues to take them all at once. Let's use this section to focus on Roosevelt. Here's from a bio:

• Based in Los Angeles, Margot Roosevelt joined TIME in 1987 after 13 years as a staff correspondent at the Washington Post. In 1988 she moved from New York to the Paris bureau, where she spent six years covering European political, environmental, cultural and diplomatic stories. [..] At the Washington Post, Ms. Roosevelt served four years as New York bureau chief and three years as congressional correspondent in Washington. She covered presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns, as well as reporting out of Latin America and the Caribbean. As the paper's chief environmental writer for three years, she traveled widely and wrote front-page series on Antarctica, Alaska, and endangered species. [6]

She is clearly an experienced and respected reporter, with expertise on political and environmental issues. If anyone is competent to address the Kochs' political activity regarding climate change, Roosevelt is among them. In an article about one of the projects funded by the Kochs, she writes:

• Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning, the biggest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.[7]

That is a clear, direct statement on a relevant issue published in a respected, mainstream newspaper. It does not violate BLP, nor does it violate WP:COAT (which is only an essay anyway). Being the most prominent funders of the opposition to curbing the burning of fossil fuels is not necessarily a negative or critical remark. Every one of us burns fossil fuels every day, directly or indirectly, and if anyone tried to make us stop immediately we'd complain. So it's a neutral remark. The only other charge I see is that it violates WP:WEIGHT, part of the NPOV policy. I don't see how a single sentence on this matter can be excess weight. However, as a compromise to minimize it's apparent weight, I suggest merging it into the existing section on "Lobbying for oil, gas, and chemical industries", and tacking it into one of the paragraphs there. How's that?   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If she was that notable she would have an article here. The fact that she doesn't calls into question her point of view from a historical perspective. Her statement is nothing more than an ad hominen. Actually it is an ad hominen against The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study in order to invalidate their work. The article from which her statement comes is about The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, and she throws out this smear against the Koch's to say that the results of the study are worthless. This is a common problem on WP in general. Take a source that tangentally mentions the subject and use this source for an out of context statement. The source itself has nothing to do with the Koch's other than to use them to attack the BEST Study, ironic acronym to say the least :). I don't see any instance where this statement by her is appropriate here. Weight will be a problem regardless. Also, I don't see any reason to add it to the lobying section. We already have quite a bit from the enviornmental perspective. There is no need to pile on individual compaints. Arzel (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that reporters be notable enough for an article in order to merit including them as a source. The assertion is simply stating a fact. Can you suggest anyone who is a more prominent funder of opposition to limits on burning fossil fuels? Why do you see it as a complaint rather than a statement? If someone writes that "Jones is the largest contributor to Smith's campaign" then that's not a complaint: it's a straightforward statement. This is likewise.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Who says it is a fact? Roosevelt? That article is not sufficient for that fact, that article does no research into this supposed fact. That article is using that "fact" as an ad hominen for the primary subject of the article. It is clearly undue weight and out of context to include a one-off statment from a tangential article. I am sure there are others that fund energy research that would meet your requirement, the only difference is that they have not elicited the ire of the left. However, I am not going to go down the logical fallacy well. Arzel (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that it's an opinion it's an expert opinion. Clearly, someone is the most prominent funder of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning. We have a source which says, reasonably, that it is the Kochs. I asked but you can't suggest anyone else. I don't think it's a contentious statement. No one has explained how it's a non-neutral comment either. Nobody is attacked by the assertion. Without any real policy-based reasons to deny this material, it's sounding like an "I don't like it" objection.   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will, I agree. Per my comment above in the previous section, we're seeing lots of subjective argumentation, wikilawyering with alphabet soup being thrown around, but a disappointing lack of policy-understanding shown by two otherwise experienced editors. The only explanation seems to be personal "I don't like it" reasons, and they aren't valid here. You are very correct. An investigation needs to be started and we need many more eyes on this situation. This is a serious matter. Wikipedia's integrity is being compromised on all the Koch articles, right at a time when we have a proven concerted and paid attack underway. I'm not saying these two editors are part of the paid group, but the effect is the same....a violation of multiple policies and a whitewashing of the Koch brothers. I don't think we're going to get anywhere since policy seems to be ignored and not understood. Another agenda is at work. Other eyes need to be brought in. How about AN/I and/or ArbCom, and include Jimbo himself? We need a high level investigation. This is much more serious than first feared. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of comments do no one service. I suggest you strike them as unhelpful to this discussion. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• One donor has had some climate bloggers up in arms: the man behind the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation owns, with his brother David, Koch Industries, a company Greenpeace called a "kingpin of climate science denial".
  • G2: Can these scientists end the war on climate change?: A group of scientists in California say they are about to reveal the definitive truth about global warming. Ian Sample talks to the project leader Ian Sample. The Guardian. London (UK): Feb 28, 2011. pg. 10
• Deepak Gupta, a staff lawyer at Public Citizen, said the "brothers have become a symbol of money in politics." "They have funneled tens of millions of dollars to groups that deny climate change and seek to influence public opinion on climate change, so that makes them a natural target of criticism," Gupta said. "There needs to be a real shake-up of public consciousness about their role."
  • Uncommon forcefulness from Common Cause Dan Eggen. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Feb 10, 2011. pg. A.17
• Wichita-based Koch Industries and its employees formed the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the panel, ahead of giants like Exxon Mobil, contributing $279,500 to 22 of the committee's 31 Republicans, and $32,000 to five Democrats.
• Koch Industries - which produces, transports and trades oil, coal and chemicals - has spent millions of dollars funding politicians, think tanks, foundations and political groups that have sought to either make the public doubt climate change or oppose climate change legislation directly. Koch has often been described as one of the country's largest polluters.
  • Environmentalists Who Spoofed Koch Industries Did Not Break Law, Should Not Be Identified, Public Citizen Tells Court Targeted News Service. Washington, D.C.: Jan 27, 2011.
• The Koch brothers have spent millions of dollars in recent years to dispute the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are responsible for ongoing climate change. They also fund various groups connected to the Tea Party movement, which last year galvanized conservatives to oppose health care reform and now backs candidates nationwide in Republican primaries.
  • Protest, profit from same hands? Brian Nearing. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Sep 11, 2010.
• Over the years, the Koch brothers have become leading financiers of "hard-line libertarian politics," investing millions to quietly push for reductions in personal and corporate income tax, social services, regulation and other policy positions that mesh nicely with the Kochs' business interests, the New Yorker reported.
  • USU business school courts billionaire ideologue Brian Maffly. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 6, 2010.

Those are just of a few of the articles which have highlighted the extent of the Kochs's contributions regarding fossil fuels and climate change. They show that Roosevelt's comment is not without context, or an extraordinary claim. We can present it as an attributed opinion. However we cannot omit it entirely because it's a significant point of view.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This smacks of original research. You have failed to address my basic questions with this end around to prove her statement correct. Her statement fails undue weight, pure and simple. The Koch's have been under almost continual attack from the left since the Dem's made them an easy whipping boy for their class warfare meme. To point to Brangifer, the only diservice on WP is the relentless political attacks on various WP BLP's. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will, very good stuff from numerous RS. BTW, on a personal note, I know you've been an admin and sysop for a long time, but are you also on the Arbitration Committee? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Will resigned his admin "position", and, as far as I can recall, has never been on the ArbCom.

As for content, some of those tend to support Roosevelt's claim, but the claim is really not verifiable or controversial, and should be attributed. Unlike some of the claims from obscenely biased articles, it's relevant to this article, and probably should be included as attributed. However, the article should not be used in global warming articles or in regard the Berkely Group, as it does make controversial comments there.

As for Wikipedia, the sock puppet finding was reversed, and the paid "finding" was primarily only from biased articles, and the claim that whatever was done was against Wikipedia policies was rejected, apparently at a high level within Wikipedia. I don't recall the details, and I am not a checkuser, so I can't comment as to whether the reason for the sock puppet finding was that they were all editing from the same company's IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't resigned anything nor have I been a member of the ArbCom (thank God). I'm still just a low-level admin/janitor. I agree with Arthur Rubin that this should be attributed.   Will Beback  talk  10:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of WMC. My apologies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(No worries. It's easy to mix up usernames.)   Will Beback  talk  10:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I too support attribution. "When in doubt, attribute" is my motto.

As to the paid IPs, yes they were all editing from the office of New Media Strategies (NMS), a right wing firm under contract with the Koch brothers to make them look good. They admitted that. They all signed up here and some were caught editing improperly. IIRC, the inital mass block was overturned when they seemed to express willingness to abide by policy.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive
• http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/ (regardless of any minor inaccuracies in that article, it's still largely true, and what's going on here on this page will likely be included in future updates)

Brangifer (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that making the accusation that they were paid to edit any specific article would be on remarkably shaky ground after they were cleared of such an allegation. ThinkProgress may not be a reliable source in any event. Collect (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Article talk pages aren't the right places to discuss motivations, sockpuppetry, or other editor-related issues. Let's keep our focus on improving the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's more by Margot Roosevelt ... Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming: A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies April 04, 2011 Los Angeles Times. 99.119.129.56 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the same article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think? Didn't you read it before commenting? Berkeley scientists' climate data review puts them at center of national debate by Margot Roosevelt Los Angeles Times is the previous news, dated March 31st. April 4th is the follow-up article. 99.19.44.47 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

<--Nothing in her resume answers the relevant questions here, what do you suppose the reader gains by knowing that she described the Koch's as the most prominent funder of opposition to limits on burning fossil fuels? And again, the article isnt even about the Kochs, if your dying to insert this bit of editorializing, then the least you can do is find an article where the Koch's global warming political activities are the actual subject. Bonewah (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The "political activities of the Koch family" are the topic of the article, so political activities related to global warming are on-topic. Since there don't seem to be any policy-based reasons for the deletion of this material, I'm going to implement the compromise I proposed above. I trust that it will not start another round of edit warring.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing has been resolved here, why would you re-insert this material? And i cant help but notice how you have, once again, simply ignored my concerns. Bonewah (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to address your concerns, but I don't understand this most recent one. Are you suggesting that political activities related to global warming or fossil fuels are not relevant to this article's topic? Are you suggesting that we create a separate article for materials related to the Kochs' political activities related to global warming?   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight is a policy aspect for which you seem to be ignoring. You have not responded to my basic concerns above, so I will state them again. Why is her opinion notable from a historical perscpective such that it does no violate undue weight? Arzel (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

The Los Angeles Times is one of the leading newspapers in the U.S., and Roosevelt is an experienced journalist writing within her fields of expertise. What standard do you propose for including material?   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My concern is the same one you have been ignoring from the start, that the source of these claims, the LA times article, isnt about the brothers Koch, and only mentions them tangentially. The standard here is obvious, if your going to cite a source, that source should actually be about the subject at hand. Bonewah (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK so there are two concerns. Arzel is concerned about weight, and Bonewah is concerned about the relevance of the source. I've asked Arzel for more information on his view of the weight issue.

Regarding the source, the source in question is about a study paid for by the Kochs which has political relevance, so it's only a little off the topic of this article. The assertion is directly about the topic of this article. There's no rule which says that only sources which are about the subject of an article may be used. Please cite the policy language that gives that impression.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If you were to take Roosevelt's opinion only you might be lead to believe that the study was paid for by the Koch's. However, if you actually look at the BEST study you will see that the Koch's only donated part of the grant, and were not even the largest doner. One of the largest doners was Bill Gates ($100,000). I don't suppose you would say that Bill Gates is one of the most prominent funders of anti-global warming initiatives..would you? Roosevelt conviently leaves that out because it doesn't fit the left meme. Arzel (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in original research, just in summarizing what reliable sources say. Above, you said your concern is with weight. I asked above how that policy applies here. The sources, the L.A. Times, is a mainstream, large city newspaper. In other words, it's a prominent POV of the type that NPOV requires we include. You appear to be assertion that this is a fringe view which must be excluded entirely. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is rich, you throw out OR saying that the Koch's funded the study as showing relevance for this section and then claim I am providing original research when I show that you are wrong. FYI, everything I just put forward is already within existing RS's. I have shown quite well, that her opinion of the Koch's in this matter is undue weight. It is up to you to show that it is not. Just because the LA Times is a large mainstream newspaper doesn't mean that every single opinion one of their reporters has is notable (which is the case). In fact after reading up a little more on the BEST study from other RS's, her opinion of the Koch's regarding their funding of the study is even less notable and more biased than I originally thought. This quote is now even less likely to be acceptable, imo, than it I previously thought it would be. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

God, back to the wikilawering again? I dont see why we should have to keep stating and restating the same objections only for you to ignore and misrepresent them over and over again. Your belligerence in the is matter is both troubling and baffling at the same time. I agree that the study that was the subject of the LA times article is relevant to this article. I even invited you to write in a mention of the Koch funding for said study. But that wasent good enough for you. I agree that the claim that the Kochs are a major backer of global warming denialism is probably relevant enough to mention. I dont object to the passage we already have in this article that says exactly that "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 asserts that between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to "climate change skeptic groups",[27] Also according to that report, between 2005 and 2008 they gave nearly three times as much to such causes as Exxon Mobil, .." And do you know why? Because its fairly easy to make the argument that Greenpeace's opinion is at least of some relevance, if for no other reason than the fact that that report is cited in other reliable sources. Moreover, the report that we cite is actually about the Kochs supposed influence over the climate change debate, which is what ive been saying over and over again to no avail. What does saying it again add to this article? Why should we go on to say that they are the "nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning", especially when we say the exact opposite elsewhere: "with Jane Mayer stating that they are now so secretive that "they are not just undercover, but underground" Which is it? Are they the most prominent or so secretive that the are underground? Hell, quote [this article] for all i care, at least its about the Kochs' (although i think that Arzel's UNDUE concern has merit, which you havent addressed) So far you havent even tried to compromise here, all you have done is badger, exhaust, misrepresent and generally be unhelpful to your fellow editors. What is your obsession with this particular quote? Bonewah (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not "wikilawyering" to ask you to cite the policy that requires we omit this assertion. I have offered a compromise: to re-write the material and move it to a less conspicuous spot. Above, you wrote "The standard here is obvious, if your going to cite a source, that source should actually be about the subject at hand." What policy or guideline sets that standard?   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar discussion on Talk:Tea Party movement#Add Opposition to a nationwide trading system to curb carbon emission was a successful 2010 political platform point for Tea Party groups and their financers in fossil fuel industries.' 99.56.120.189 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

Her quote is undue weight. She is not well known from a historical perspective. Her opinion does not add anything of note to the article that is not already expressed in the article. Her statement in general is questionable at best since Bill Gates (whom is far more well known than the Koch's) was another large private donor. WP:NPOV is the only policy that needs to be stated. Presenting her quote is WP:UNDUE and violates NPOV by presenting a non-notable opinion prominently, and by over-presenting the opinion of critics as to futher unbalance the article against the Koch's. To a lesser degree it is a BLP violation since the statment is an ad hominen attack and is phrased to claim that the Koch's are one of the main pushers of allowing global warming. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? who says that Gates is a "prominent funder of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning"? If we have a source for that we can ad that to his bio. I don't see how it affects this article, one way or another.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is just it, none of it is relevant to this article. Gates was a huge donor to the same study. Gates ($100,000), Koch ($150,000). Roosevelt uses Koch's donation to this study as part and parcel to push that meme and throw out ad hominen attacks. Gates was also criticized, but simply not mentioned by Roosevelt because it didn't fit the left meme because Gates is a not a target of the left. A singular biased ad hominen attack from a non-notable reporter has no place for singular prominance in this article. It is clearly undue weight and in violation of NPOV. Until you can prove that it is not I see no instance where this quote belongs here. Arzel (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not writing about the study. That's a red herring.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the concerns raised. If there's nothing else I'll make a new draft along the lines of the compromise I proposed above.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving things about is not a compromise, just as obfuscation and distraction is not addressing concerns. All's youve done is avoid addressing our concerns and generally exhaust your fellow editors. Bonewah (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you or Arzel offered any compromise solutions that I've missed?   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed my concerns. Simply claiming that you have is not acceptable. Given your recent statements, further discussion with you seems pointless since you do not seem interested in discussion. Arzel (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)