Talk:Koch, Inc.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Koch, Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Koch, Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Bloomberg Markets magazine implicates Koch Industries in dozens of criminal acts around the globe over the past three decades
- GOP Mega-Donor Koch Brothers' Company Tied To Global Criminal Misdeeds In Bombshell Article businessinsider.com
- Koch Brothers Flout Law With Secret Iran Sales bloomberg.com.
Please include the information into the article.84.152.55.83 (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
"Business Insider" is a blog and aggregator - and has been found not to be WP:RS. The actual Bloomberg article shows that Koch was the one which found the illegal acts in a subsidiary - and is actually quite favourable to Koch, Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- "The actual Bloomberg article shows that Koch was the one which found the illegal acts in a subsidiary - and is actually quite favourable to Koch, Cheers." Quite favourable? The title of the article is Koch Brothers Flout Law With Secret Iran Sales.
- "The actual Bloomberg article shows that Koch was the one which found the illegal acts in a subsidiary ..." The Koch employee who found the illegal acts was Egorova-Farines. From the article:
"Egorova-Farines wasn’t rewarded for bringing the illicit payments to the company’s attention. Her superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent, even after Koch’s investigators substantiated her findings. She sued Koch-Glitsch in France for wrongful termination."
- I put it to you that your statement is misleading, Collect. Cheers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Koch reported the illegal acts of its affiliate. Seems to me that this is sufficient to indicate that Koch did not wish its affiliate to break the law, and the fact that an investigator was fired much later does not mean anything as to why the person was fired. It is not up to Wikipedia to try cases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Before information from the piece is plastered all over the article, we need to discusses exactly what's going to be added, the source of these additions (not Bloomberg but where they got it), and whether or not those sources are legit. This article and the others dealing with the Koch's have a history of vandalism and giving undue weight to critics.Churchillreader (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll repeat the question I put in the edit summary, why was there no mention in the article of the $296 million verdict in the Sterling butane pipeline explosion (before I put it in)? Cheers.
- You say, "Koch reported the illegal acts of its affiliate." Not to the public it didn't. The illegal acts of the affiliate where reported to Koch May 2008. The reporter of the illegal acts was "removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired ... in June 2009, [when she was called] incompetent, even after Koch’s investigators substantiated her findings" (from the Bloomberg article). The illegal acts were not made pubic until a "civil court ruling in France in September 2010; the document has never before been reported by the media" (from the Bloomberg article). Cheers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It reported to the proper authorities - as is reasonable and customary. Do you think that reporting to the proper authorities was in any way, shape, or manner improper? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which proper authorities were reported to? Document disclosure in a civil lawsuit is not a proper reporting channel. Franamax (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- “Those activities constitute violations of criminal law,” Koch Industries wrote in a Dec. 8, 2008, letter giving details of its findings. The result, according to Koch, was the firing of the person responsible for the bribes. Koch Industries took elaborate steps to ensure that its U.S.-based employees weren’t involved in the sales to Iran, internal documents show. Koch Industries may not have violated the law if no U.S. people or company divisions facilitated trades with Iran, says Avi Jorisch, a Treasury Department policy adviser from 2005 to 2008. That’s impossible to determine without a complete investigation, Jorisch says. from the same article. Most of the article, in fact, is simply rehashing charges made in other articles - the only "new" bit is the charge that they uncovered a bribery scheme, and fired the director involved as a result. ( authorized by the business director of the company’s Koch-Glitsch affiliate in France. and they fired him.) Cheers - the actual material is either simply rehashing material already in this WP article, or the fact that they fired a person who broke laws. Collect (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Iranians for Prosperity. Gotta love how the Tea Party benefactors doing business with Iran. It's as Anti-American as you can get. Reap what you sow.--JLAmidei (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- “Those activities constitute violations of criminal law,” Koch Industries wrote in a Dec. 8, 2008, letter giving details of its findings. The result, according to Koch, was the firing of the person responsible for the bribes. Koch Industries took elaborate steps to ensure that its U.S.-based employees weren’t involved in the sales to Iran, internal documents show. Koch Industries may not have violated the law if no U.S. people or company divisions facilitated trades with Iran, says Avi Jorisch, a Treasury Department policy adviser from 2005 to 2008. That’s impossible to determine without a complete investigation, Jorisch says. from the same article. Most of the article, in fact, is simply rehashing charges made in other articles - the only "new" bit is the charge that they uncovered a bribery scheme, and fired the director involved as a result. ( authorized by the business director of the company’s Koch-Glitsch affiliate in France. and they fired him.) Cheers - the actual material is either simply rehashing material already in this WP article, or the fact that they fired a person who broke laws. Collect (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which proper authorities were reported to? Document disclosure in a civil lawsuit is not a proper reporting channel. Franamax (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It reported to the proper authorities - as is reasonable and customary. Do you think that reporting to the proper authorities was in any way, shape, or manner improper? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Before information from the piece is plastered all over the article, we need to discusses exactly what's going to be added, the source of these additions (not Bloomberg but where they got it), and whether or not those sources are legit. This article and the others dealing with the Koch's have a history of vandalism and giving undue weight to critics.Churchillreader (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Koch reported the illegal acts of its affiliate. Seems to me that this is sufficient to indicate that Koch did not wish its affiliate to break the law, and the fact that an investigator was fired much later does not mean anything as to why the person was fired. It is not up to Wikipedia to try cases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Quote "...not Bloomberg but where they got it" that's kind of an interesting idea. You might consider reading the project's basic guidelines again. Evaluation of journalist's sources is not necessary. Otherwise we can start closing the project down.91.39.82.46 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Semi-Protection
In light of the recent Bloomberg article, we need to consider the possibility of requesting semi-protection in the future. Vandalism from unregistered users will inevitably begin shorty.Churchillreader (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, this article shouldn't get protected. The Tea Party benefactors did a trade deal with the "Axis of Evil" (quote by George W. Bush). It's toxic no matter how you slice it and will not be swept under the rug easily. --JLAmidei (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Theft of Indians' oil worth 1.5 Mrd. US$
- Greg Palast: Uber-Vultures: The Billionaires Who Would Pick Our President. Any further sources on this?--91.39.82.46 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
alleged bias
The political action section is tagged "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Where is the bias? Evidence must be given or the tag goes.--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I've got an example now: calling Greenpeace an "environmental group" without calling it "radical" (some would say "terrorist", but we should not) is a clear WP:NPOV violation. Other examples include:
- Many of the comments refer to political activities of the Kochs and the Koch foundations, which should not be in this article. but only in Political activities of the Koch family. I would have used an {{off-topic}} tag rather than {{NPOV}}, but the latter is arguably correct.
- Failing to note that the Koch organizations contribute to Democratic candidates is a clear WP:NPOV violation, even if the contributions to Republican candidates were appropriate, and even if a reliable source says that.
- Even if, contrary to common sense, Mayer is considered a reliable source, her quoting of clearly unreliable sources amounts to repeating gossip, contrary to Wikipedia policies.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- What WP:RS says Greenpeace is terrorist or radical? The WP article about it describes it as environmentalist.
- What comments refer to political activities of the Kochs and the Koch foundations, and should not be in the article?
- Why is failing to note that the Koch organizations contribute to Democratic candidates is a clear (or even possible) WP:NPOV violation? What Democratic candidates have they contributed to? I listed candidates they contributed to that I know of. If you know of some right-wing democrat they've contributed to why not add it?
- What clearly unreliable sources has Mayer quoted? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a Koch money map, if you want to know which palms have been greased.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/21/koch-money/
Hcobb (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- In no particular order
- Mayer quotes "exxonsecrets" as if it were unbiased and believed to be accurate; neither is actually the case. Greenpeace, as a whole, is also unreliable, except as to their own actions. Meyer also quoted anonymous sources for what is essentially gossip.
- There actually is a WP:RS which refers to Greenpeace as terrorist; I seem to recall a Japanese government report which calls them terrorist. Check that article history of Greenpeace for details, but it was decided that the source(s) was/were not sufficiently reliable under WP:TERRORIST. "Radical" seems clear.
- Political activities of the Koch family and foundations should not be in this article, regardless of accuracy or reliablity; only political activities of Koch Industries themselves and their PACs, not their employees, or any other Koch units. Mayer, Greenpeace in general, and exxonsecrets in particular, are guilty of this conflation of information, but we should not be.
- If we were talking about Koch Industries contributions, rather than other Koch entities, then the gross amounts and percentages for Democrats would be relevant if sourced. Just saying "contribute to Republican candidates" is not entirely true, so should not be said, even if it were in a reliable source.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- In no particular order
- The Mayer article is a reliable source. I'm getting impatient with the constant attacks on it, none of which have been supported by outside editors. At some point repeated instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT becomes WP:tendentious editing. Will Beback talk 00:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was entirely unreliable; but where it says things which are demonstrably false (such as saying the Koch foundations are controlled by Koch Industries, while they might be controlled by the Kochs themselves), it shouldn't appear in Wikipedia without correction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Mayer article is a reliable source. I'm getting impatient with the constant attacks on it, none of which have been supported by outside editors. At some point repeated instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT becomes WP:tendentious editing. Will Beback talk 00:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're making a big deal out of a distinction without a difference. If the CEOs and other executives of a company are supporting a foundation, then it is evident that the company is supporting the foundation. Looking at one such assertion, I see it's supported by a Washington Post article which says, "[John D. Graham] also served as an adviser to Mercatus, the staunchly anti-regulatory center funded largely by Koch Industries Inc., the oil and gas company and mega-GOP contributor. Charles G. Koch and another top Koch official serve on the nine-member Mercatus board of directors."[1] Will Beback talk 00:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- The specific phrase I was objecting to here was "while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding". If it were replaced by "Koch-controlled foundations", it would be accurate, but inappropriate for this article. (And my "context" tag has been added frequently; it's a Koch (Industries) response to that Greenpeace report, but the full letter shows that it was in response to environmental allegations, not funding/lobbying allegations.) As for "contributions to Republicans", the source doesn't say that; Democrats are also recipients, and the "Sunlight Foundation" source lists a Democrat as having received the most among House members.
- And, still, much of this should only be in the main article, not here. I'm adding an "off-topic" tag, as well; as I noticed above, almost all of the phrases I object to are both off-topic and NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to other editors to discuss those narrow points. But the next time I see an editor here claiming that the Mayer article is not a reliable source I will ask for seek community remedies for the reasons stated above. Will Beback talk 01:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- When Mayer reports something which is easily contradicted by reliable sources, we either shouldn't include it, or report the controversy in an unbiased manner. Nonetheless, the phrase "Koch Industries-controlled foundations" and the section on donations to Republicans are the only items attributed to Mayer which I'm challenging for NPOV violations. "Off topic" is another matter entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- In regard "terrorist", we actually do have a reliable source, namely Japan's Fisheries Agency, which had reported Greenpeace as being environmental terrorists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to other editors to discuss those narrow points. But the next time I see an editor here claiming that the Mayer article is not a reliable source I will ask for seek community remedies for the reasons stated above. Will Beback talk 01:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're making a big deal out of a distinction without a difference. If the CEOs and other executives of a company are supporting a foundation, then it is evident that the company is supporting the foundation. Looking at one such assertion, I see it's supported by a Washington Post article which says, "[John D. Graham] also served as an adviser to Mercatus, the staunchly anti-regulatory center funded largely by Koch Industries Inc., the oil and gas company and mega-GOP contributor. Charles G. Koch and another top Koch official serve on the nine-member Mercatus board of directors."[1] Will Beback talk 00:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
<-I think this line "According to at least one critic, the political activity by some of the Koch-supported foundations -- such as Mercatus Center -- helps the company financially. According to Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in environmental issues, “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the EPA, and Mercatus has constantly hammered" on the EPA." is exceedingly biased and irrelevant. We are quoting the opinion of one guy. This has all the appearances of a quote cherry picked to advance a particular point of view, one which is all over the political action section. Bonewah (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's not an NPOV problem; it's an RS problem. At least, that's the way I see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Its not the source so much as the way its used. No matter how impecable the source, its still just the opinion of one guy, appearing in RS does not automatically make it fact. Further, i believe it is a NPOV problem in addition to the relevance issue. The statement has more than one problem. Bonewah (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- The quote, (added by myself) is followed by another
An environmental lawyer who has clashed with the Mercatus Center called it “a means of laundering economic aims.” The lawyer explained the strategy: “You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank,” which “hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders.”(source)
- Its not the source so much as the way its used. No matter how impecable the source, its still just the opinion of one guy, appearing in RS does not automatically make it fact. Further, i believe it is a NPOV problem in addition to the relevance issue. The statement has more than one problem. Bonewah (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- and then followed by an example:
In 1997, for instance, the E.P.A. moved to reduce surface ozone, a form of pollution caused, in part, by emissions from oil refineries. Susan Dudley, an economist who became a top official at the Mercatus Center, criticized the proposed rule. The E.P.A., she argued, had not taken into account that smog-free skies would result in more cases of skin cancer. She projected that if pollution were controlled it would cause up to eleven thousand additional cases of skin cancer each year.
In 1999, the District of Columbia Circuit Court took up Dudley’s smog argument. Evaluating the E.P.A. rule, the court found that the E.P.A. had “explicitly disregarded” the “possible health benefits of ozone.” In another part of the opinion, the court ruled, 2-1, that the E.P.A. had overstepped its authority in calibrating standards for ozone emissions. As the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank, revealed, the judges in the majority had previously attended legal junkets, on a Montana ranch, that were arranged by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment—a group funded by Koch family foundations. The judges have claimed that the ruling was unaffected by their attendance. (source)- I'd be happy to add the whole thing to show evidence of non-cherry picked nature of the quote.--BoogaLouie (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- As for: When Mayer reports something which is easily contradicted by reliable sources, we either shouldn't include it, or report the controversy in an unbiased manner. Nonetheless, the phrase "Koch Industries-controlled foundations" and the section on donations to Republicans are the only items attributed to Mayer which I'm challenging for NPOV violations. As I said before if you have examples of Koch giving to Democrats go ahead and add them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Koch Industries has this editorial ("Why Koch Industries is Speaking Out") on its homepage. Note the title is not "Why Koch Brothers are Speaking Out." Note the editorial does mention Koch Industries support of a specific politician (Scott Walker) and its opposition to another (Obama). ("In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tipoed around the issue of overspending ... Because of our activism, we've been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we're determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges [deficit spending by governments] seriously.") --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The followup quote is blind gossip. Mayer is quoting non-expert enemies of the Kochs and conservatism as informed critics. We don't need to quote them (and, in fact, I believe we shouldn't); however, if we do, we need to note that their expertise consists primarily in being enemies of the Kochs.
- The Sunlight Foundation reports significant contributions to Democrats; in fact, the top Representative (by contributions) was a Democrat.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on policies and guidelines, not what Arthur Rubin asserts is "blind gossip" or "non-expert enemies" or what he decides "needs" to be quoted. If the Sunlight Foundation reports significant contributions to Democrats then put that in the article with the proper sourcing. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of cited material
Arthur Rubin deleted this sentence:
During the US 2000 election campaign, Koch Industries spent some $900,000 to support the candidacies of George W. Bush and other Republicans.[1]
with the edit summary: Undue weight, and not in citation given.
One sentence about a $900,000 campaign contribution hardly seems like undue weight, but as for the citation, here is what the source (Covert Operations by Jane Mayer) says:
During the 2000 election campaign, Koch Industries spent some nine hundred thousand dollars to support the candidacies of George W. Bush and other Republicans.
Rubin, do you have any excuse for making this false statement, "not in citation given"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- The New Yorker doesn't provide the article on one web page, so I probably missed it. However, it's clearly undue weight because Koch Industries spent a significant amount of money to support the candidacies of Democrats in that campaign; I found at least $100,000; much less than the alleged $900,000, but my scan of the official documents produced about $500,000 on Republicans and $100,000 on Democrats. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- May I suggest that if you have information about contributions to Democratic candidates you add something like "Koch Industries also contributed $______ to ______" with a citation including a LINK, to the article. We cannot take your word for what you "found" in "official documents" --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
contributions to democrats
In reply to Arthur Rubin's complaint that not enough was said in the political activity section about contributions by Koch to Democratic party candidates, and his comment that
The Sunlight Foundation reports significant contributions to Democrats; in fact, the top Representative (by contributions) was a Democrat.
I've added a paragraph on the subject (thank you Hcobb ) from the Sunlight Foundation page on Koch Industries (I've copied it below). Hopefully now we can remove those tags ...
This section may contain material not related to the topic of the article and should be moved to Political activities of the Koch family instead. (November 2011) |
[neutrality is disputed]
... right Mr Rubin!
According to the Sunlight Foundation,
The majority of the money contributed by Koch Industries has gone to Republicans. A select few Democrats have also been recipients. These include the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus including Reps. Mike Ross, Jim Matheson, and Dan Boren. Others are those who support Koch priorities like defeating proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations.[2]
--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
PS, the top recipient of Koch contributions was not a dem. See for yourself. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any grasp at all regarding NPOV? Go push your POV somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
rvt
my edit was reverted here by collect with the edit note saying "it is NOT a news organization blog - read WP:RS to see why it is not usable"
In fact the Wikipedia:RS says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
I've reverted the edit back.
I would encourage anyone who hasn't seen the The Sunlight Foundation site to check it out. The site is beautifully designed with mouse-over giving the politician's name, party and money contributed via a map of the US. Sunlight is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Collect has made a 3RR warning on my talk page and I've self-rvted. plan to do a RfC Friday Monday. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Proposed change in article
(pretty much a repeat of posts by me above) I proposed that the following sentences in italics below be added:
According to the Sunlight Foundation,
The majority of the money contributed by Koch Industries has gone to Republicans. A select few Democrats have also been recipients. These include the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus including Reps. Mike Ross, Jim Matheson, and Dan Boren. Others are those who support Koch priorities like defeating proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations.[3]
and
The Center also reports Koch Industries contributed $1.35 million to winning congressional campaigns in the 2010 cycle.[4][5]
(both edits were added by me here and here before being deleted.)
and these tags removed
This section may contain material not related to the topic of the article and should be moved to Political activities of the Koch family instead. (November 2011) |
[neutrality is disputed] -BoogaLouie (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Issues
Is sunlightfoundation.com/blog/ WP:RS or not?
Is talking about Mercatus Center and the Kochs, offtopic?
Edits
- paragraph
I attempted to add the paragraph about sunlight foundation in response to complaints by Arthur Rubin that there was no mention of Koch industries contributions to democrats in the article ("The Sunlight Foundation reports significant contributions to Democrats; in fact, the top Representative (by contributions) was a Democrat." (that last bit about top Representative appears to be untrue)) I posted the following paragraph:
According to the Sunlight Foundation,
The majority of the money contributed by Koch Industries has gone to Republicans. A select few Democrats have also been recipients. These include the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus including Reps. Mike Ross, Jim Matheson, and Dan Boren. Others are those who support Koch priorities like defeating proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations.[6]
(The other paragraph also cites the sunlight foundation.)
While the posts are technically from a blog (sunlightfoundation.com/blog/), sunlight foundation is a reputable non-profit, nonpartisan organization, and the blog the antithesis of homemade opinion blog. and so qualifies for Wikipedia:RS under the policy: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
- tags
Many of the tags are "{{off topic sentence}}" and appear in this paragraph:
According to a critic of the Mercatus Center and the Kochs, the political activity by some of the Koch-supported foundations -- such as Mercatus Center -- helps the company financially.[relevant to this paragraph? – discuss] According to Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in environmental issues, “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Mercatus has constantly hammered" on the EPA.[1][relevant to this paragraph? – discuss] The founder of the Mercatus Center, Richard H. Fink, also heads Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington DC.[1] According to a study by Media Matters for America, Koch Industries (and other Koch brothers-owned companies) "have benefited from nearly a $100 million in government contracts since 2000."[1][7]
Why are the statements off topic? according to wikieditor Arthur Rubin Many of the comments refer to political activities of the Kochs and the Koch foundations, which should not be in this article. but only in Political activities of the Koch family.
However the source("mayer" http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all) specifically talks about the "Koch" and "the company":
Mercatus Center does not actively promote the company’s private interests. But Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas, who specializes in environmental issues, told me that “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the E.P.A., and Mercatus has constantly hammered on the agency.”
I've also added another source talking about Koch Industries and not Koch brothers
ref>"Mercatus, the staunchly anti-regulatory center funded largely by Koch Industries Inc." I Am OMB and I Write the Rules By Al Kamen
washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2006]</ref> --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
comments
- Talking about the Mercatus Center and the Kochs is off-topic unless
- The source specifically names Koch Industries in a significant manner [I was going to say the source is specifically about Koch Industries, but that is probably too strong], and
- The information also appears in Political activities of the Koch family.
- The Sunlight foundation link previous supplied did have a Democrat as the highest Representative receiving Koch Industry funds (whatever they mean by "Koch Industry funds"), but it may have been 2007-2008.
- I lean toward the sunlight foundation "blog" being a reliable source, except that it may not meet the stricter WP:BLPSPS. (The Kochs, and the recipients of the funds, are presumably living.)
- The Washington Post source is a column; further research would be needed to determine whether it's under the full editorial control of the paper, or whether it's just the columnist's opinion, which would also fall afoul of WP:BLPSPS if we use it to "name names".
- I think it's generally an improvement, provided
- Mayer's statement that Koch Industries funds Republicans is balanced,
- I still think the sentence I tagged above is off-topic gossip; it's Mayer (at least, I think it's Mayer) quoting an unnamed critic for a non-specific statement.
- We don't "name names" (including the Kochs; companies and foundations are OK) unless the source clearly meets WP:BLP.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rubin, one thing you have consistently done in your posts on this page is fail to provide EVIDENCE of your assertions.
- WHO is "the Democrat" receiving more Koch Industry funds than any other???? Where is you link to where this was said????--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- If the information should "also appears in Political activities of the Koch family," is the solution to delete the information or to put it in the Political activities of the Koch family?
- it's Mayer (at least, I think it's Mayer) quoting an unnamed critic for a non-specific statement.
- Here is what I said above earlier in reply to your complaint:
- The quote is by an unnamed critic, but it is followed by another
An environmental lawyer who has clashed with the Mercatus Center called it “a means of laundering economic aims.” The lawyer explained the strategy: “You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank,” which “hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders.”(source)
- Rubin, one thing you have consistently done in your posts on this page is fail to provide EVIDENCE of your assertions.
- and then followed by an example:
--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)In 1997, for instance, the E.P.A. moved to reduce surface ozone, a form of pollution caused, in part, by emissions from oil refineries. Susan Dudley, an economist who became a top official at the Mercatus Center, criticized the proposed rule. The E.P.A., she argued, had not taken into account that smog-free skies would result in more cases of skin cancer. She projected that if pollution were controlled it would cause up to eleven thousand additional cases of skin cancer each year.
In 1999, the District of Columbia Circuit Court took up Dudley’s smog argument. Evaluating the E.P.A. rule, the court found that the E.P.A. had “explicitly disregarded” the “possible health benefits of ozone.” In another part of the opinion, the court ruled, 2-1, that the E.P.A. had overstepped its authority in calibrating standards for ozone emissions. As the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank, revealed, the judges in the majority had previously attended legal junkets, on a Montana ranch, that were arranged by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment—a group funded by Koch family foundations. The judges have claimed that the ruling was unaffected by their attendance. (source)
Note: At the proper noticeboard - WP:RS/N no one defended Sunlight Foundation as a reliable source. So that is already off the table. Secondly, Mayer is used so much in the article already that we run the real risk of copyvio. No BLP (and this article is absolutely under WP:BLP) should rely that heavily on a single contested article per WP:UNDUE. Also, opensecrets.org is considered a "primary source" at the same noticeboard, and the claim that Koch Industries made the donations was roundly condemned there as not representing what the source says in any way. Misuse of a source is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Cheers, but these "proposed edits" are flagrantly wrong and contrary to policy and guidelines, and noted as such on the proper noticeboards as well. Collect (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- the discussion (with my reply) at the noticeboard is here--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I will withdraw my proposal for a quote from Sunlight Foundation, but I think you may be drawing a little too much from that noticeboard discussion, Collect. BTW, I would have been nice if you r notified this talk page of your question on the noticeboard so that others could participate. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Partisan censorship?
Does User:Arzel removing references to WP:NEWSORG which hiding under the cover of NPOV count as censorship?140.247.79.223 (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. And you likely should apprise yorself of some major Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- How does WP:BLP apply to Koch Industries? Are you suggesting that the Guardian is not a reliable source? And, how does WP:V apply? Are you saying that Guardian is not a news organization? Are you saying that it is ok if some person, call him notArzel, went around deleting references to Fox news and claiming NPOV? Would you then say if realArzel complained that realArzel needs to "apprise himself of some major Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V"? Cheers.140.247.79.223 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- As you might have noticed, a great deal of the article is abut two living brothers. Material relating to living people is covered by WP:BLP no matter where it is on Wikipedia. Some sources given here in the past are not reliable sources ber WP:RS etc. so that cavil fails. If you have any serious questions to pose, I suggest you pose them at WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I missed, at first, one bit of the WP:BLPSOURCES guidelines -- to inline citation requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.79.223 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- As you might have noticed, a great deal of the article is abut two living brothers. Material relating to living people is covered by WP:BLP no matter where it is on Wikipedia. Some sources given here in the past are not reliable sources ber WP:RS etc. so that cavil fails. If you have any serious questions to pose, I suggest you pose them at WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- How does WP:BLP apply to Koch Industries? Are you suggesting that the Guardian is not a reliable source? And, how does WP:V apply? Are you saying that Guardian is not a news organization? Are you saying that it is ok if some person, call him notArzel, went around deleting references to Fox news and claiming NPOV? Would you then say if realArzel complained that realArzel needs to "apprise himself of some major Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V"? Cheers.140.247.79.223 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Bloomberg.com potential resources
From Talk:Political activities of the Koch family ...
- http://topics.bloomberg.com/koch-industries/
- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/koch-iran-link-causes-candidate-to-send-contributions-to-charity.html by Kristin Jensen, October 19, 2011
- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html by Asjylyn Loder and David Evans - Oct 3, 2011 1:28 PM ET Bloomberg Markets Magazine, excerpt ...
Such a probe would fall under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 1977 law that makes it illegal for companies and their subsidiaries to pay bribes to government officials and employees of state-owned companies. Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney says the agency won’t confirm or deny the existence of any investigation. While Koch-Glitsch was conducting its internal probe of illicit payments for contracts, the U.S. government was investigating Koch’s European unit on another front: sales to Iran.
- http://www.bloomberg.com/video/76441616/ video Oct. 3 Koch Industries Inc. is a global industrial company run by brothers Charles and David Koch. Bloomberg Markets magazine's November issue examines some of the company's questionable practices and political lobbying (Peter Cook reports).
99.181.136.158 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
mayer
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Koch Money . Paul Blumenthal . March 21, 2011
- ^ Koch Money . Paul Blumenthal . March 21, 2011
- ^ sunlightfoundation.com koch money
- ^ see also Heavy Hitters. Koch Industries opensecrets.org
- ^ Koch Money . Paul Blumenthal . March 21, 2011
- ^ Koch Companies Have Received Almost $100 Million In Government Contracts August 20, 2010 — Media Matters Action Network