Jump to content

Talk:Koch family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KDS4444 (talk | contribs) at 11:12, 14 September 2015 (→Heads up: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why is this here?

Are there alot of Koch brothers out there? Are the "brothers" as a pair that notable? --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be moved to Koch family and all members listed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree Petri Krohn. In fact the case could be made that rather than as an disambiguation page, the "Koch Brothers" could be their own article - as they are commonly referred to as an political entity. Below are some sources from just the last few weeks ...
* 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
* 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
  Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then i will move to merge the indivual Koch Brother article to the this page. I see no value in splitting up content in this way, ether you get indivual pages like Peyton Manning and Eli Manning or they get a single page like the Wright brothers. There is no reason to have both, except as a disambiguation page. Bonewah (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that the two brothers's articles should be completely merged into the Koch brothers article, but I'm saying that most of the two brothers' articles should be merged, leaving summaries and information which doesn't apply to both in the individual brothers' articles. It does not make sense as a disambiguation page. It never did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only other logical approach is to propose deleting this page. That approach makes some sense, but it's not a speedy, so it would take the full 7 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im not entirely opposed to a merger, but 1) If that is what you really want, then you should use a merger template and encourage discussion the proper way, not adding this page as a see also. 2) If we do a merge, that mean that the individual Koch brothers articles are going to become redirects to this page. I wont claim to have surveyed all of Wikipedia, but I cant think of a circumstance where brothers have both individual pages and a page on them together, nor can i think of a good reason why you would. 3)I more or less agree that it does not make sense as a disambiguation page, but that is more of an argument for deletion than anything else. Bonewah (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Per above, I am proposing that all of the Koch family articles be merged into this article, and that this article be renamed Koch Family. Other articles not listed but potentially to be merged would be Fred C. Koch, Frederick R. Koch, Bill Koch (businessman) and Koch Family Foundations. Each individual could have their own subsection and general facts about the Koch family could be consolidated. Bonewah (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – I think all these are notable on their own right. However, I do think that this should be expanded into an article on the family. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — that's not one of the scenarios consistent with facts and Wikipedia policies. However, an article on the Koch Family could survive, on one of two bases:
    1. Including only those things in common with all the family members considered, summarized in the individual family members' articles (my preferred position), or
    2. Summarizing here general descriptions of the family members, with each section having a {{main}} tag pointing to the more detailed article.
  • — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. — No reason to merge. They are individuals with unique characteristics. David, for example, is known for his philanthropy in medicine after having prostate cancer. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - They are notable in their own right. The CEO of the largest private company in America and, probably, the largest philanthropist to the arts in Manhattan and a major donor to politics deserve their own pages. I agree that a Koch Family page could make sense. There is the company Koch Industries that is a privately held company in which Charles Koch and David H. Koch together have by far a controlling share. There is the Koch Family Foundations, including one controlled by Charles and one by David and others, which give lots of money to advocacy, art, science, education, and local issues. Merging all of these into one big amorphous category seems like a rhetorical strategy that overly simplifies, creating WP:NPOV issues. I would be interested in seeing a proposed Koch Family text to see if it abides by WP:NPOV. MBMadmirer (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I don't see any way to rope Frederick R. Koch and Bill Koch (businessman) into this framework. That counts as another argument for Oppose. MBMadmirer (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around and it seems that having a 'family' article is not totally unprecedented, Kennedy family seems ok to me, if we did something along those lines I cant see a problem. If we try and think of the Koch brothers as some kind of political unit, then I think we are inevitably going to have NPOV and BLP issues. Bonewah (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There's a Bush family and a Rockefeller family too. In some ways, the Rockefeller family feels most comparable in that we are dealing with very wealthy people who have not held elected office. That page contains a family tree and a list of important Rockefellers. There is also a Rockefeller page that contains simply a list of Rockefellers and institutions that bear their names, usually through contributions. In the case of the Kochs you have the Charles Koch Arena, the David H. Koch Theatre, the David Koch Institute, and perhaps others. (Regrettably, the Fred Koch Brewery is unrelated). Would one of those be a model? MBMadmirer (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to believe that a CEO who runs the largest private company in the country is not notable in his own right. Perhaps User:Will Beback's claim suggests that this page isn't up to snuff like David H. Koch may be. MBMadmirer (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Strenuously. These are two individuals and material common to both can be adapted for each article, but they are both now prominent public figures and merit separate articles. Indeed, this is a lame idea to merge. Arjuna (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am feeling consensus here.MBMadmirer (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems totally reasonable. Can we remove all the merge tags? MBMadmirer (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, esp. after the wise move, in my opinion. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to add a philanthropy section

The paragraph at the top of this page mentions their philanthropy. I think a philanthropy section that highlights entities named after the Koch family might be appropriate. There are similar things in the Rockefeller page. For example: David Koch Theatre, David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and Charles Koch Arena. These have Wikipedia pages and therefore meet notability requirements, etc. I am just not sure what the protocol or scope of the family page would be. Thanks! MBMadmirer (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, do! (I put the articles in a See also section, but they should be included in a proper section on philanthropy or whatever.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think progress as a source

Wow, that think progress video isnt even close to a reliable source. For one thing, its about as non-neutral as you can ask for, its a WP:SPS and it grossly misrepresents Koch's support for the tea party, asking him about AFP, then immediately cutting to a question about the tea party to give the impression of a connection. In any event, the fact that it is a blog is enough to disqualify it so i removed it. Bonewah (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkProgress.org is an extension of the Center for American Progress, a left-wing version of The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. The blog of the AEI is used as a source in several Wikipedia articles[1]. The AEI web site itself is used as a source in hundreds.[2] The Heritage Foundation's blog is cited in several articles, including one on the Obama Doctrine[3]. The Heritage Foundation itself is cited in hundreds of articles[4]. Likewise, thinkprogress.org is cited in over a hundred Wikipedia articles[5]. So is the Center for American Progress[6]. In general, ThinkProgress and the Center for American Progress are less likely to be cited than either of their conservative counterparts. This indicates several things: (1) generally, these blogs have come to be considered to be reliable sources for the particular viewpoints that they espouse; (2) these blogs are already cited in many Wikipedia articles; (3) these blogs are not "self-published," but are rather the publications of Washington, DC-based political thinktanks, each with their own editorial boards; (4) the conservative blogs have a greater presence on Wikipedia than the liberal one. My question to Bonewah: what do you make of this? (As a side-note, I don't have any personal political interest vested in this debate; I stumbled across this article via Reddit[7])
Generally, I feel that the disputed information belongs in Political activities of the Koch family. --TimothyDexter (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not proper for the conservative blogs to be used as references, either, except for the opinion of the poster. Sometimes that can be adequately notable. I don't think AEI or the Heritage Foundation site should be used except for their opinions, either, but there may be rare cases in which it's appropriate.
(1)Not consistent with Wikipedia polices.
(2)WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
(3)There is no evidence that the blogs are not the publications of the individual author, hosted by the organization. "Self-published" is correct.
(4)Possibly, although your searches are not very well coded.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


RSN:The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers

Please see: WP:RSN#The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this section removed? "Political Affiliations/Activism"

Political Affiliations/Activism

- The Koch family have been known to give campaign finances to many conservative politicians as well as funding for the Tea Party movement. Some of their most notable recipients include: Wisconsin gov. Scott Walker, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, Rep. McHenry of North Carolina, Rep. Ross of Florida and several others[1].These donations have raised doubts to legitimacy of many representatives’ claims that they are protecting taxpayers and not disabling the system for the benefit of Koch Industries. Accusations have mounted that these representatives are taking anti-union actions on Koch Industries orders. Recently it was brought to light that a large number of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform republican members have received a total of over $100,000 in campaign finances from the Koch Family; this includes: Issa, McHenry, and Ross. [2] Issa is also the chairman of the Oversight Committee.

References*
  1. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-p-hoffa/walkers-political-theater_b_849199.html
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

Would it be better in Political activities of the Koch family?
209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC) & Repaired (see next contrib) by Jerzy•t 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*   At the risk of some residual confusion, i have modified the preceding, previously ill-formatted, talk contrib, by adding a line of markup reading :::''References''<big><big>*</big></big><br>''{{reflist}}''; it has the primary effect of keeping the quoted refs from appearing (seemingly inexplicably) as orphans at the bottom of this talk page, and the harmless but perhaps slightly helpful secondary effect of making those refs accessible, to those who read the "removed" passage that includes the ref-markup, and to which those refs apply.
--Jerzy•t 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly unsourced gossip. "Raised doubts to legitimacy" and "accusations have mounted" are just gossip, even if sourced, and they do not fund the Tea Party movement, even if some say they are known for it. The sourced sections (if any) could be only in Political activities of the Koch family. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You condemn "unsourced gossip" but then you cite no source for your flat assertion that the Koch brothers do not fund the Tea Party. Their role in funding the Tea Party has been widely reported, even in the corporate media. I'll restore that fact, with citation, and then get into some of the other stuff that's been improperly deleted. Something like "raised doubts [as] to legitimacy" isn't improper because it's gossip, it's improper because it's editorializing -- we shouldn't adopt such opinions but we should report the facts of significant criticisms. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is all unsourced gossip. And it's still clearly incorrect to say that they fund the TPm. At most, you could say that they fund organizations considered to be in the TPm. Anything else along those lines is gossip, even if from an ordinarily reputable columnist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, whatever should be said, should only be in Political activities of the Koch family, rather than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comments here and in your ES.
  • You inveigh against saying that the Koch brothers fund the Tea Party movement, when they only fund certain organizations. If you look at what I actually wrote (the language you reverted), I didn't say that they fund the Tea Party movement (although of course they do). I wrote that they fund certain organizations involved with the Tea Party movement. That's pretty close to the wording in your comment, except that you added the gratuitous "considered to be", which would falsely imply that there's some legitimate dispute about the involvement of FreedomWorks and its ilk.
  • You assert, without benefit of citation, that any information on this subject must "only" be in the Political activities of the Koch family article. According to the relevant Wikipedia guideline, however, "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place" (emphasis added). Thus, the existence of the "Political activities" daughter article is not a basis for expunging all information on the subject from the main article. We hit the highlights here and go into greater detail there. Given the Tea Party's prominence, the Koch brothers' role in it is certainly one of the highlights.
  • Your edit summary says that the source is a blog "at worst". You appear to be assuming that there's a blanket prohibition on citing blogs. There isn't. The prohibition applies to citing self-published sources, a category that includes most blogs but not all. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) for details. The mere use of the word "blog" doesn't make a source unacceptable. The source I cited falls within the exception (hosted by a news outlet, written by a writer who's a professional in the field).
Accordingly, I'm restoring this properly encyclopedic material. JamesMLane t c 18:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: There's really no good-faith dispute about the facts here. This page is an article from Politico (a conservative-leaning source), which is reprinted on the FreedomWorks website, and which states in part that the Koch foundation has contributed "hundreds of thousands — and likely millions — of dollars to one of the main Washington nonprofit groups assisting tea partiers around the country: Americans for Prosperity, which was founded by the family’s most politically active member, David Koch." JamesMLane t c 18:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, any information about political contributions should be in the article Political activities of the Koch family. This statement is not.
  • Blogs, OpEds, and other essentially self-published sources are not allowed for statements about living persons, per WP:BLPSPS, unless it's clear that the column is under complete editorial control. It's not clear, but you may provide evidence to that effect, if you can find some.
  • To the addendum, Politico is not conservative-leaning, and there is evidence that the Kochs have not contributed to FreedomWorks after the split also producing Americans for Prosperity.
If you want to add a statement that the Kochs fund TPm organizations, find other organizations and other sources. You might try Meyer; although I think any rational person would find that her works are not remotely reliable, consensus is otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the TPm organization funding question for a moment, the rest of the removed section is nauseatingly bad and was rightfully removed. Bonewah (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-p-hoffa/walkers-political-theater_b_849199.html are the two sources in the quote above, for clarity. 99.181.140.229 (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bonewah, but I was only removing policy violations at this time, as the anon is keeping me near 3RR just reverting clear falsehoods and policy violations. (I'm not saying that JamesMLane is the anon, just that the anon is also damaging this article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've evidently gotten confused. No anon has edited the article since May 7. My latest edit cited Politico, which you appeared to accept as a source, but you reverted it anyway. I'll charitably assume that was a result of your temporary confusion. I'll restore the information here and, per your suggestion, add an appropriate passage to the daughter article. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times and The Huffington Post. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Politico is also not a potential source for a WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, your latest sentence is undoubtedly true, but trivial. The linkage between the Kochs and FreedomWorks is that the Kochs founded a predecessor organization, but FreedomWorks was taken over by Armey, and there is no present association. (And it's still ugly.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick McHenry and Dennis A. Ross ? 99.190.81.244 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg Markets magazine implicates Koch Industries in dozens of criminal acts around the globe over the past three decades

Please include the information into the article.84.152.55.83 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before anything from this article is included we need to verify its sources to determine legitimacy. Articles in the Koch universe have a long history of giving undue weight to critics' opinions. Please, discuss any additions here before placing them in the article. Churchillreader (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that Bloomberg News is not a reliable source? If so, please link to the discussion where this was decided, or where it was decided that the "Koch universe" is to be treated with special sensitivity. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Avoid Edit War

RE: Political Activity Section

You stated in your "undo" edit "copypaste". Far from it.The entire verbatim was rewritten. Further, the section in question is a list of data points. Any effort to bring the data into this article will show a limited ability to change the verbatim to a great degree since 75% of what's covered is data.

You further added, "addition of unrelated material not in reference". I'm sorry. I guess you'll just have to READ the article for the first time since, it's all there. How can you first claim copy/paste, and then say, "Well the info he added isn't in the article anyway." LoL!!

Lastly you stated, "Possibly WP:UNDUE weight, as well." Ummmm'no. The section as it was, was "POV" and highly pro-Koch.

We have options.

1.) Text showing lobbying contributions and what the Koch family has lobbied for, stays in.
2.) Entire political activity section, which, in it's past form, paints the Koch family as philanthropic angels will be deleted.
3.) "neutrality/POV" tag on Political Activity section if the past edit stays.

I'm updating this offering since I realize how much weight I have in my arguments. Now, only option 1. and 2. remain.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4) Question the reliability of the source (editorial vs. news article, etc.)
5) Accurately summarize the source. You have not even come close, unless there's more to the source than in the URL.

In addition, this material is not in the main article, Political activities of the Koch family. Start by attempting to include it there, before including it here. Finally, to the extent the material is not adequately sourced, it would be a WP:BLP violation to include those parts associated with the brothers, as opposed to Koch Industries. I'm going to reread the source, and I'll remove it again if there are parts not reflected in the source. I suggest you do the same. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal tags required if your material is to be included are {{POV}} {{disputed}} {{verification failed}} {{reliable source?|reason=source appears to be an editorial, rather than a news article.}} {{off-topic|Political activities of the Koch family}} — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Listen. I'm reverting this one last time. YOU officially took this out first. If you revert my this revert, it will be YOU who are in violation of the 3RR rule. Understand?
The Guardian is a newspaper with origins back to the 1800's! It has impeccable esteem.
"Ye complaineth too much, me thinks." You are a POV editor, and it's obvious from the fact that every time I explain how dramatically wrong you are in your reasons to revert my edits, you come up with more reasons which you never mentioned before. It's not so much that you don't think the edit follows WP guidelines, you just don't like the facts to be shown and will say anything in order to have it removed from the article.
If you revert this one more time. I'm reporting you. Period.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Everyone - first - please stop the edit war. Also, be sure to sign your posts here, so we can see who's saying what... Every post should end with 4 tildes ~~~~. Thank you. Vertium (talk to me) 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted with the disputed tag suggested. But you can change it back if you see that fit. Sorry. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec 2)Before that post, you had already reverted 3 times, although one was of an addition that I agree shouldn't be there. I'll report you to WP:AN3 if you performed the 4th revert, as you said you were going to do. Although not even a guideline, WP:BRD suggests the material should not be in the article until there is a discussion. You (XB70Valyrie) have not given a reason why most of my comments are wrong; you're only attacking {{reliable source?}}, which may just need verification that it's supposed to be a news article. You have not challenged any of the other comments.
As for content,
  1. Newspapers have editorials, which are not reliable for alleged statements of fact.
  2. In your attempt to avoid a copyright violation, you've said things which are not in the source.
  3. The material should be added first to Political activities of the Koch family. IMO, actions of Koch Industries should not be in this article, but they should certainly be in that article in more detail than here.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I am going to report you to WP:AN3 when I get back from my errands, if you don't self-revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking it over, I don't have any BLP concerns with your additions; only the first two sentences relate to an actual person, and they seem to be sourced, although the second one requires interpretation to determine whether the lobbyists include Koch Industries and the Koch Foundations, as well as the Koch family. The remaining sentences are not in the source, but they only relate to Koch Industries, so are not a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS, I was wrong. Your addition misappropriates the activities of Koch Industries to the Koch brothers themselves. Rather than removing it, as removing a WP:BLP violation is not counted against WP:3RR, I've fixed it. On the other hand, you have reverted 4 times, although you appear to be addressing some of the concerns expressed by other editors about the addition. May I suggest that you remove your paragraph as an observation of WP:BRD, while discussion is occurring.
I should add that removing any of the tags without consensus would be another revert. (#5 in the past 24 hours.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever "Arthur Rubin". You can't print libel or slander, even if it is an editorial. You are just like so many of the Koch family attorneys who simply throw out one objection after another at the judge trying to see what will stick. You've been reported too. Not only am I reporting you for violation of the 3RR rule but I'm recommending your permanent expulsion from WP for inciting edit wars without first undergoing through good faith debate before your sweeping edits. I followed your suggestion to add a tag to the section. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually work for the Koch's.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get some third party input while I report User: Arthur Rubin. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Arthur Rubin continues to make un-agreed upon edits to this article after being told not to make any more edits by the Edit War moderator. The article section is now filled with tags that nobody agreed upon. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If you report me, you will undoubtedly be blocked, as you have violated the letter of WP:3RR. I may have violated the spirit, though.  :::::I would like to withdraw my claim that it's an editorial; it may be a column, which can be considered reliable for alleged facts, but many of the statements made are opinions, which must then be attributed to the author, rather than to the publication. You have still added material clearly not in the source (at least for someone with a strong knowledge of English), the material you've added is disputed, biased, and unencyclopedic, and belongs only in political activities of the Koch family, rather than in this article. You have not addressed any concerns other than the reliability of the source.
I'll be back in 2 to 3 hours to determine whether you have supported any of your claims.
Actually, your addition of the paragraph was "un-agreed upon", and there is no such thing as an "Edit War moderator". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rarely wins arguments, and deleting material from talk pages is considered vandalism unless unrelated to improving the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Assume good faith --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text from argument you're making on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've italicized the verbatim and will make my points in regular font.

Failure or refusal to "get the point"

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus

There has been no consensus. It's just been you and I arguing.

of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end,

How can I be repeating an argument without end when you keep changing your position. I've had to make several different arguments based on your ever-changing positions.

and refusing to acknowledge others' input.

I've acknowledged ALL of your input, don't you think? Your input just always happen to be POV.

Often such editors continue to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you.

Have we covered all the ground you wish to cover? I've requested this page be protected without the tags you added without consensus, until this is all agreed upon. Hey, if you want to propose a rewrite of the material I added so it doesn't sound like such an indictment, then let's do that. But, the mere fact of what the Koch family does politically being viewed by most as unconscionable does not mean that it is POV. It's just the facts. I mean, how can anybody view lobbying to change federal legislation governing potentially poisonous materials like dioxins, benzene and asbestos as good?--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Id say at a minimum, the material you are attempting to insert does not belong here. Political activities of the Koch family would seem a more obvious place for this (not that I agree with the proposed additions, just saying). Remember, this article covers the whole family, the material you are attempting to add only covers 2 of the brothers. Bonewah (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonewah. Okay. If that is true, then, it is also fair to say that this text also does not belong here either. It about their "foundations" not the brothers themselves.
"David and Charles have funded conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States.[7] Since the 1980s the Koch foundations have given more than $100 million to such organizations, among these think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, as well as more recently Americans for Prosperity.[8] Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are Koch-linked organizations that have been linked to the Tea Party movement.[9][10]"
There is a Political activities of the Koch family article it belongs in. These are not philanthropic organizations either. They are political. If my edits go, so do the above. I will make that concession.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<redacted>
<redacted>
Absolutely wrong. The paragraph you want to remove is close to a summary of the article political activities of the Koch family. Even if your paragraph were sourced to a WP:RS (which I doubt), it should be in that article before it can be summarized in this one. I'd be willing to compromise on my not re-inserting that paragraph if you were banned from all articles on the Koch family, broadly defined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further proof that you're a agenda motivated editor. "Banning" someone from a subject's pages only goes to censor. The existence of a "Political Activities" section here in this article, even if in mere summary, does not make it immune to the rules of NPOV. That's what my edit deliver; NPOV. Anyway. I don't see anyone rushing to your aid there, and I also have consensus (below) on how to treat the citation which appears to be the last leg you've been standing on.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tags Added Explanation Required

Please explain here....--XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{failed verification}}: What you wrote is not in the article. I don't know a simpler way to say it. Even when you copied the article, you removed enough context that what you wrote did not mean the same thing as in the article.
{{reliable source?}}: I don't think it's an editorial; I now think it's a column, so it may be reliable as to facts, but opinions need to be explicitly attributed to the author, rather than the publication.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is an editorial. It is in the 'comment' section of the guardian's website which is distinct from 'news' or 'sports' etc. It reads like an editorial, with lots of opinion and admonishment that people should be 'deeply worried' and so on. Frankly, i think the center for public integrity report that he cites would make a better source than the guardian editorial. Bonewah (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Arthur Rubin RE: Not in the article - Sorry, just not true Arthur Rubin. If you look in the history of this article, you'll see that another Wikipedian had passed by less than 48 hours ago, and tried to remove the verbatim in question for being too close to the actual The Guardian verbatim itself. He claimed "copy/paste" even! In response, I edited the verbatim I'd placed in this article by changing the sequence of sentence fragments within complete sentences and changed a few words with equal synonyms. Sorry. Not in article? That dog just don' hunt. I'll copy/past the very text into this talk page and do a side by side with the existing verbatim. The bottom line is the facts are facts are facts are facts. 75% percent of the words in my edit are facts set forth by The Guardian article. There is no way to "spin", "color" or "bias" what is being said in the original The Guardian article. If you have any further argumentation on this point, I'll be happy to listen to it, but considering the high level of frivolity in this and the rest of your arguments, it is clear that you are NOT here to make a better article. You are here acting as overt, conservative, tea-party policy-pusher and sensor. You could care less about the integrity of this article as long as it only speaks well of "your boys". Finally, if you feel there are additional sections to the original The Guardian article that need lucidity in this section, feel free to bring them into debate here on the Talk Page.

@ both. I disagree that this is an "editorial". But as you read, you'll see I'm flexible and have some solutions. Even if this were an Editorial there would still be a number of other obstacles to overcome in order to have it expelled as an inline citation.
1. The Guardian is not a publication with any decided bias. I expressly chose it because The Guardian appears neutral by all accounts. It's not like I'm citing a blog, or The Huffington Post, MSNBC or even FoxNews (Although I'm certain conservatives all over Wikipedia are using it as a "reliable source". LoL!)
2. The Guardian is a publication with a long heritage and provenance of centrist journalism spanning 3 centuries. It's not some upstart rag that just sprung out of the wood-work.
3. Again, playing along with the unproven assumption that this is an editorial to entertain your argument, WP rules do not exclude using an editorial as a citation from reliable sources since the journalist is subject to the fact-checking department of said publication according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Again, the facts are the meat of my addition. Using a citation and the existence of the "references" section, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "allows readers and editors to check the source material for themselves."
4. Remember the Wikipedia Common Sense rule and stop Wikipedia:Gaming the system. It obvious that Arthur Rubin is here to sensor, not edit. Common sense.
I think Bonewah has an excellent suggestion. I'll re-cite this with (for lack of a better word) the "Genesis" article that The Guardian used. I second Bonewah's idea. Of course, Arthur Rubinwill argue against that too, since he just don't want stuff that makes the Koch's look even remotely dubious in this, or any article for that matter.
All this being said, I believe Arthur Rubin has a point that there are certain non-fact transition portions that read a little malevolent in their address. I'd invite him to help me rewrite that aspect of my edit, but I know that will never be considered by him since he's only here as a conservative sensor.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having scanned your edits, it is a mistake for you to call yourself an experienced editor. With only 1,050 edits (including deleted edits), that would put you at "apprentice" (or possibly "novice") in any reasonable scale. Going back to content, you have a history of placing biased pro-union material in articles where the material would not belong, even if the material were accurate.
Even if your source were an editorial, it could be used for facts; but, even if it were a news article, it could not be used for speculation on the motives of the Koch brothers or of Koch Industries.
As for your specific points:
1. I think the word I would use for The Guardian article is clueless. As an example, your assertion (mostly taken from the article) that "Wherever a law touched on a Koch corporate interests, the company's lobbyists were there trying to subvert, retard or even roll-back any attempt at regulation," is not only opinion, but it's something a good lobbyist should be doing.
2. Suggests this must be an editorial or opinion column. The tag "Comment is Free" may indicate that.
3. I've answered this one; even if it's an editorial, it can be used for facts; and even if it's a news article, it cannot be used for speculation.
4A. What "Ignore all rules" means is not "common sense".
4B. You are "gaming the system"; as I have pointed out a few times already, the section you added the material is supposed to be a summary of the article political activities of the Koch family. Get your material there first, and then we could discuss whether your material, even if accurate and unbiased, might still be WP:UNDUE weight. I suspect it should be in this article if it should be in that article, but you need to get it there, first.
You seem not to understand Bonewah;s suggestion. He suggested using the CPI (not "Genesis") article as a source for statements in Political activity of the Koch family. Being unable to comprehend complex English sentences is not a crime; if your English comprehension skills are inadequate to the task, we (Wikipedians) can help you with understanding. If you refuse to note that what you write is not what is in the article, there's not much we can due except to request a block for WP:COMPETENCE.
May I suggest that there is absolutely no rational reason why the information should be in this article, even if it were taken from a peer-reviewed paper. Work on incorporating your material in Political activities of the Koch family, and I'll assist you in removing the biased speculation. Unless, of course, it really is an editorial or opinion column, as the tag "Comment is Free" indicates, in which case it could only be used for clear facts, which is about two sentences.
I should also add that an editor was banned (not blocked) for accusing other editors of working for the Kochs. I suggest you have some facts behind you, if you want to make those accusations in the future. I suppose I should be proud. I've been accused of working for the IRS, Alex Jones, the FDA, the Tea Party, the 9/11 "truthers", but I've never being accused of working for someone who actually has money to spend on lobbying before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad this edit I've added isn't pro-union. If it were, you'd have an argument. I seem to have slighted you by inquiring if you were an attorney for the Koch's. You made a couple personal slurs, which, I think I earned. Let's move on. Water under the bridge. They were funny.

I'll add my responses in italic. You said,

1. I think the word I would use for The Guardian article is clueless. As an example, your assertion (mostly taken from the article) that "Wherever a law touched on a Koch corporate interests, the company's lobbyists were there trying to subvert, retard or even roll-back any attempt at regulation," is not only opinion, but it's something a good lobbyist should be doing.

I agree. They should be trying to change the laws which effect their business adversely. In fact the Koch's have even said this. They don't hide that fact. But that does not exclude such activity from comment or inclusion. I agree that the sentence you mention is written a bit poisonously. Let's change it.

2. Suggests this must be an editorial or opinion column. The tag "Comment is Free" may indicate that.

Oh I see. Now it's even an Editorial "opinion" column. The citation has now been changed. I also don't have to go back to the very dockets on these legal actions to have it as a verifiable citation. This is not a courtroom. Also a WP admonishment.

3. I've answered this one; even if it's an editorial, it can be used for facts; and even if it's a news article, it cannot be used for speculation.

After we re-write this let's not leave anything but facts then. I'm game. :)

4A. What "Ignore all rules" means is not "common sense".

Yes it does. Read it. You failed to read the article I cited to begin with. Are you doing it again now?

4B. You are "gaming the system"; as I have pointed out a few times already, the section you added the material is supposed to be a summary of the article political activities of the Koch family. Get your material there first, and then we could discuss whether your material, even if accurate and unbiased, might still be WP:UNDUE weight. I suspect it should be in this article if it should be in that article, but you need to get it there, first.

Oh my lord. I'm gaming the system? LoL!! I appreciate your attempts at helping me with this. I'll add it to that article as well. You keep saying "It's not in the article". I keep saying, "It's in the article". What portion of my paragraph is NOT in the article. Can you copy/paste it here and bold what is NOT in this article? I'd like to see specifically. Thanks for your help. I think we may be talking past each other on this. Each one having a different interpretation on what "it" is. Can you define "it"? Oh my God! =0 I sound like "Clinton". LoL! Going to bed. Even a pilot forced by management to fly a 16 hour shift with 150 passenger on board needs sleep. ;-) --XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to User: Arthur Robin to Rewrite the Presentation of the Facts

Here. Please offer your pen on the existing verbatim in a proposed rewrite of the paragraph I added. I've bolded the facts. They I think they should all still be there when we are done.

"The Koch brothers contributed $20.5 million to political interests in 2008. Koch Industries employs at least 30 government lobbyists. Koch Industries has lobbied to loosen regulations and/or change federal legislation governing potentially poisonous materials like dioxins, benzene and asbestos. In all, Koch Industries has lobbied to change more than 100 pieces of federal legislation to the advantage of their industry interests. Through their political activities they have lobbied against restrictions on carbon emissions and funded thinktanks (political strategy groups) that promote efforts to discredit climate change science. The derivatives market hasn't escaped their attention either. They tried and succeeded in softening attempts at financial reform in those areas since they have substantial financial interests in derivatives. Wherever a law touched on a Koch corporate interests, the company's lobbyists were there trying to subvert, retard or even roll-back any attempt at regulation."

I think we can change the flow of the wording in the bolded sections too, but obviously I wont agree to edits like, "...change overly restrictive regulation on stigmatized chemicals only perceived to be give you the sniffles like dioxins, benzene and asbestos."

I'm remaining flexible, but I think your stone-wall approach to this point only works against your arguments until now. I think this is your best opportunity to mitigate what will appear in the article, IMHO. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were remaining flexible, you would start by attempting to put the information into the correct article, not this one. Or aren't you familiar with the concept behind the {{main}} tag?
Still, the following facts are covered by the article:
  1. Koch Industries contributed $20 million to political interests in 2008, and $20.5 million over the next two years.
    See caveat below
    The article also said it had $100 billion of revenue in 2009; I think we are allowed to combine those to say that lobbying expenses are around 0.02% of revenue, but I'm not sure.
  2. Koch Industries employs 30 registered lobbyists.
    Actually, the article doesn't say that, it says The Koch's companies, but I'd be willing to let that one go.
  3. Koch Industries has lobbied to affect more than 100 pieces of federal legislation.
    "to the advantage of their industry interests" is speculation, and some of the "changes" were before the legislation was introduced, so "change" is not the correct term.
  4. Koch Industries has lobbied to loosen regulations on toxic materials such as dioxins, benzene, and asbestos."
    Stronger and weaker than what you wrote: Koch Industries has lobbied to loosen regulations and/or change federal legislation governing potentially poisonous materials like dioxins, benzene and asbestos.
  5. The Kochs, directly and indirectly, have donated to foundations which promote efforts to discredit climate change science.
    Actually, I can't find anywhere where they specifically lobbied against "carbon emissions", and the article makes a more subtle statement on the funding of think tanks. You may be right about carbon emissions, though.
  6. They have lobbied to prevent increased regulations on financial securities, such as petroleum-based derivatives.
    The articles doesn't say they were successful, and doesn't indicate who "they" are, (the Kochs, Koch Foundations, or Koch Industries)
    Note also that you need to add the correct Wikilink for "derivatives", namely Derivative (finance).
  7. ... and nothing here, related to your speculation:
    Wherever a law touched on a Koch corporate interests, the company's lobbyists were there trying to subvert, retard or even roll-back any attempt at regulation.
Is that a good start? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely doesn't belong on this article. I can see XB70Valyrie is already trying to put it elsewhere so there shouldn't be any need to continue with the discussion here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's move further discussion to the Political activities of the Koch family. Insidentally, this move was recommended by Arthur Rubin.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to 'libertarian' causes should be removed. This is editorial, as many Libertarians would say they have nothing to do with the concept. The causes they contribute to, are mostly self defined, like the invention of the Tea Party and Stop Obama 2008 bus tours. I know of no direct affiliation of the Libertarian Party with the Kochs in the last two election cycles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.180.243 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "libertarian" does not necessarily refer to the Liberarian Party. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

This is an excerpt from wp:reliable sources: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person." The two sources in the paragraph I removed are a forum and a blog. That is why it was removed so please do not add it back in again unless you have reliable sources, and do not start an wp:edit war. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Also, the one source that was added does not mention the Koch family at all. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excerpt from the section on opinion pieces. Did you keep reading until the part where it says news blogs by respected journalists are reliable sources? The newer source does not mention the Koch family, and it also does not mention tidal waves in the Virgin Islands, but it does fully support the sentence citing it. Please do not use racial slurs.Sally Season (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the alleged racial slur? —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to ask the same question. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said do not start an edit war. I said do not use racial slurs. Did I misunderstand the rules?Sally Season (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please click the link for edit war. I don't know how you could assume that it is a racial slur. What part of the words 'edit' and 'war' have anything to do with race? When I said "do not start an edit war", I meant that you should allow for discussion to take place before reverting, which you did not do. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of 'do not use racial slurs' have anything to do with a link for edit war? What part of 'racial' and 'slur' have anything to do with the link you provided? You gave unsolicited advice, so I returned the favor. And I edited. You reverted.Sally Season (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What racial slur do you think I made? I'm very confused by your comments. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What edit war do you think I started? In this chicken and egg scenario, someone added info to the article, you removed that info based on faulty reason, and I put the info back in. I never disallowed discussion, so I'm not sure where you get that.Sally Season (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think she's conceded that there was no racial slur. While your comment, AdventurousSquirrel, about not edit warring was pre-emptive and premature (IMHO), her comment was out of left field and totally unwarranted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fred, that helped clear it up. I'm sorry if you assumed that I was accusing you of edit warring, as I was only asking that you discuss first before reverting. I may have said it prematurely, but it might have to do with the fact that you are a new account and yet you seem to have singled out many of my edits and reverted them. I admit that I can make mistakes which is why I am open to discussing the issue. There are still many issues with the paragraph that you added back in and I will lay them out here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take my own advice to not revert until it is discussed. I think that paragraph should be removed or revised. The first sentence about the $100 million to conservative and libertarian causes has a dead link. I found the working link to the page and it doesn't say anything about the $100 million or anything about conservative causes, so that sentence shouldn't be in there. Of the 3 links after the last sentence about AfP and Freedomworks, the 3rd doesn't mention the koch family at all. The 2nd is a blog that says it got its sources from Jane Mayer's article which was widely criticized. The first source that was recently added is decent and usable, so we can see if we can make something out of that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is completely uncalled for. That is a personal attack and a lie. I explained my reasoning here for these edits, and I never removed anything on the David Koch article, I added 'according to the author'. You need to get familiar with the policies on Wikipedia and act civilly if you want to continue editing here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I didn't diff between the two Koch articles, but the comment about deleting still stands. And Fred is right, you made an offensive 'advice' out of left field, so I returned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Season (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sally, two wrongs don't make a right. Please don't reply to a perceived insult with an intended insult.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to attack, but all of the recent edits where things are deleted or sources are misrepresented seems fishy. If you do not like the cites, why not just add new sources to your liking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Season (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misread Fred's comment. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not.Sally Season (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section as an attempt to WP:SYNTH the section. I see the intent is to link the Koch family with the Tea Party movement, but you cannot list a couple of sources and then say they are linked to the Tea Party like that. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kochs have been linked with the Tea Party movement, but we need a secondary source. The sources given are unreliable, but notable, primary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arthur and the sources that the Kochs have been linked with the tea party. Secondary sources are already there and reliable. Don't let that stop you from adding more.Sally Season (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given for the statement are the sources linking the Kochs with the tea party. We need secondary sources noting that the primary sources made (or made up) the link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship and astroturf

I have flagged that this article is constantly being censored and astroturfed by people on all sides of the arguments areoun dthe koch brothers because of their involvement in politics. This is a key piece of data and a good way to flag this is to for the viewer to look at the history of the page. Pointing out this out has been repeatedly censored by someone who says that it should be taken to the talk page but refuses to make any comment on the talk page. It my belief that censorship should not be allowed until it has be commonly agreed that there very good reasons why something should be censored. Conversly the other party believe that censorship=good and people should just know that they need to check a history to see that its being changed rapidly over time. I believe that if you flag cenorship, by clearly marking things as being black marked then people know that they are not seeing the true picture and can then make an assesment based on that. This basically comes down to a belief in authoritarin view that censorship is good because it protects people in power or a libertarian view that is supposedly avowedly supported by the Koch brothers and the John Birch Society that cencorship is bad because it restricts fredomX-mass (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your current issue is whether your comment
"This article is being constantly modified by various groups because of Charles and David's involment in politics, please read the history pages to see how it has been changed overtime"
is properly an edit to be placed into the actual BLP. Alas, it is not proper to place such comments into a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
who says that "it is not proper to place such comments into a BLP" please specify the policy that says this. That in effect censorhip is good and proper! 14:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by X-mass (talk • contribs)
its very intresting that you have made 21 commmits to wikipedia some as long as 1000 words, this would suggest that you are professionally editing wikipedia, I believe there are issues within wikipedia about people professionally astroturfing articles? 14:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-mass (talk • contribs)
Your approach is unlikely to be productive. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
   Our colleague X-mass (talk · contribs) has been answered (whether perfectly or not) by several responsible and reasonable editors who lack the administrator privileges which can, when necessary, resolve such disputes even when a disputant fails to submit to reasonable guidance. (I guess i've made myself a party to the dispute by performing a reversion that is relevant to it, and i'd at least have to review policy before i could properly personally intervene.) Suffice it to say that an experienced admin has taken note of the dispute, and no one should worry that X-mass's one-editor campaign -- well-intended, i sincerely presume, but clearly contrary to the interests, and outside the guidelines, of WP -- can't be responded to effectively. I'm not involved as an administrator (The Wolf is not here may be the way to put it), but am as an old-hand (i know how and probably when to get the Wolf here).
   Other matters await me, but i'll return within hours.
--Jerzy•t 17:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
   Oh, yeah: I did return here, but that action has shifted to my talk page. [shrug]
--Jerzy•t 04:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on applicability and enforcement of BLP policy regarding content on this page.

There is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_-_Koch_brothers_vs_Shepard_Smith on applicability and enforcement of BLP policy regarding content on this page. --Elvey(t•c) 02:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

OTRS has received a ticket (#2015091410000465) giving us a heads-up on intent by the Koch Brothers to manipulate their Wikipedia-related content. Pursue as ye see fit, oh, minions: thy heads are now uppified. KDS4444Talk 11:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_family&oldid=680971443"