Talk:Koch family

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)

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)

I've read the very noun philanthropy and though: what the fudge??? It should be awareness of the need for propagational measures labelled as philathropism. If that phenomenon centers on ones own state of well-being (including ones family a.s.o.) it should be called: egotism with a conscience.

I am wrinting this knowing nothing about that philanthropistic entity as the "billionaire"-fact. That's like calling a makrel "a method". Yuck!--78.51.207.169 (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Cracking vs. Fracking

Hi all, I'm new here, signed up for this reason: the introduction to he Koch Family page is incorrect. Let me explain.

The intro states that Fred Koch invented a new method for fracking, but what he did was invent a new method for cracking. The difference is subtle, but very important, especially due to the current political and environmental debates going on. Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, a process for extracting natural gas from shale beds. Cracking is the process by which crude oil is catalytically broken down into various other substances at an oil refinery. Both are involved in the petroleum industry, so I can understand the confusion, but only one is associated with Fred Koch: cracking. Fracking wasn't even invented by the time Fred Koch had made his name in the petroleum industry.

So, the introduction should read: "The family business was started by Fred C. Koch, who developed a new cracking method for the refinement of heavy oil into gasoline.", not "..developed a new fracking meethod...". This is not an issue on the Fred Koch page, where his invention of this new method is cited in: http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/paranoid-style-liberal-politics/555525?nopager=1

That article at the weekly standard does mention this new method, but it would probably be good to find a better source, as the article is political in nature and therefore potentially biased (though of course the bit about Fred Koch's background in the industry is not presented as political, more as backstory). The two original sources are Charles Koch's book and a "company profile" from Hoover's, apparently a business information site. One can also find out about the cracking method from the Koch Industries official site, but I'm not sure that should be cited, again due to potential for bias. Is there a biography or another source potentially free of bias we could refer to here?

Sorry guys, I'm new here so I'm not sure how to contribute properly. Apologies if I get something wrong.

Dylanrahe (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting edit in Political Influence section

Edits I've made (below) have twice been reverted (here and here) in the Political activities section by @DaltonCastle: with the summary "not in source".

The "Koch brothers", i.e. Charles and David Koch, have been noted for developing not only a network for financing the political campaigns of conservative candidates, but financing and organizing an "interlocking network of think tanks, academic programs and news media outlets". They have been called a "rival center of power" to the "establishment" of the Republican Party, and have expressed frustration with establishment candidates for the 2016 Presidential election.(An example of their influence was the visit by House Speaker John Boehner to David Koch in Manhattan in 2011 to appeal for help when Boehner needed votes to prevent a government shutdown.)

This is untrue. Here is the source: Nasaw, David (2016-01-12). "Review: Jane Mayer's 'Dark Money,' About the Koch Brothers' Fortune and Influence". New York Times Book Review. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
and in it you will find mention of the Koch's "interlocking network of think tanks, academic programs and news media outlets" and their being a "rival center of power" to the "establishment".

There is much dispute over whether the Kochs are a force for good or ill, but few can dispute they have considerable political influence beyond campaign financing and that John Boehner appealing to them for help is a vivid example of that influence. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Hello Louie! (May I call you Louie for short?) Thank you for responding here with your grievances. I think we will be able to reach some agreement here. My first point is that both Kenneth Vogel and Jane Mayer are known to be outspoken critics of the Koch family. And since Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS why include these sources so high on the page when they would be better suited in a criticism section at the bottom of the article, or possibly even a separate page? I understand this does not exclude their classification as a WP:RS, but given that there are sources that don't arouse any questions, there is no need. In addition, I cannot find the John Boehner information in the sources provided. If that is in her book could you provide a quotation? Perhaps if there is a source surrounding Boehner's appeal we can include that last sentence. What are your thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: BoogaLouie is not my real name. You can call me what you wish.

First off, do you still insist that the points made in the disputed text are "not in source"? Secondly, I'm sure Kenneth Vogel and Jane Mayer are not supporters of the Kochs, but I'm not sure how statements like "interlocking network of think tanks, academic programs and news media outlets" or mentioning Boehner's appeal to them to use their influence to end the shutdown qualifies as either criticism or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. For all I know the Kochs might consider it flattery. So I would say: a) the disputed text shouldn't be in criticism because .... well it doesn't criticise. b) if you don't like "interlocking" how about something like "that often work together". --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not see mention of the Boehner appeal in the sources provided. And isn't the wording as it stands 1. rather similar to what you proposed 2. not with any bias one way or the other? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made an error. I apologize. The mention is in another NYT article about the Mayer book (CONFESSORE, NICHOLAS (11 January 2016). "Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says". New York Times. Retrieved 10 February 2016.) I've added it to the post above.

If you think my suggestion doesn't help any I will get a Wikipedia:Third opinion when I have time. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the Koch Family

How is this not a section? Public criticism of this family has been hugely notable even to the point of being mentioned by the President of the USA. Is there a reason for why this section doesn't exist?

This piece -- and/or sources therein -- might go under such a section, or someplace related to the their political efforts. It's about a Koch organization using robo-calls in order to -- get this -- kill a bond for a new public library. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koch family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131114070358/http://www.fmkfoundation.org/history.asp to http://www.fmkfoundation.org/history.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Koch Family edits

(THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN MOVED FROM MY USERTALK PAGE – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC))

As this my first effort to work to improve the quality of Wikipedia content, I am sure that I need to spend time learning the tools and procedures.

I am however concerned that I received an email stating that I removed content in the process of editing the posting. The original post stated, "According to investigative reporter Jane Mayer[26] and the environmental NGO Greenpeace, the Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. Anthropogenic climate change denier Willie Soon received $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.[27][28] Organizations that the Koch brothers help fund, such as Americans for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Manhattan Institute, have been active in questioning global warming.[29] Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vote against climate change legislation that does not include offsetting tax cuts.[30][31][32][33]"

I cannot see where I deleted content but only added clarification. The updates I provided to this posting are highlighted.

According to investigative reporter and progressive activist Jane Mayer[26] and the environmental NGO Greenpeace, the Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. Regarding the highly controversial theories espousing anthropogenic climate change, Willie Soon is reported to have received $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.[27][28] Dr. Willie Soon, a physicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics. Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian. Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge,. Massachusetts, and an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California's San Gabriel Mountains. He recently discussed with CEI his research on climate change. Organizations that the Koch brothers help fund, such as Americans for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Manhattan Institute, have been active in questioning global warming because unlike most scientific theories that undergo decades of peer review, climate change has been highly politicized and tainted by inaccurate models.[29] Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vote against climate change legislation that does not include offsetting tax cuts.[30][31][32][33] This action helps to ensure that taxpayer funds are not improperly wasted on questionable solutions.

Please note that those who claim things like "settled science" taint the term science. Case in point, one of our greatest minds "theorized" the existence of gravitational waves. Yet, Einstein's theory was not, settled science and in fact underwent nearly 100 years of peer review. Only after decades of debate and significant efforts to develop techniques to verify his theory were we able to declare the actual existence of gravitational waves, and consider it... settle science. Therefore Ms. Mayer's inflammatory statement of "denier" should not meet the Wikipedia standards and prompted me to provide additional background about Dr. Willie Soon, a Harvard professor. Furthermore, efforts to blunt reactionary legislation supporting disputed and contentious theoretical positions should not be painted in a negative fashion.

Please advise what content was deleted. Further, if there is any concern regarding the clarification I provided the original post, please let me know what I can do to help. I will gladly work to learn the tools provided and to link references where you feel they are needed.

Morrisdlx (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)morrisdl

(Comment by a talk page stalker.) Morrisdlx, your edits clearly advance your personal point of view, and also contains factual errors. You are editorializing which simply is not allowed. Please read our core content policy requiring that articles be written from the neutral point of view. This is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Morrisdlx (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)morrisdl Cullen328 ... First I am dubious to responding to a "page stalker" as this may be the same as a troll on other sites but, never the less. Please identify the statements that you think are "personal point of view" and not factual.

For example:

• Ms. Mayer is a reporter for The Guardian a very biased publication.
• Anthropogenic climate change is a theory and as such not scientific fact. Research in this area as been further tainted by skewed models and the injection of governmental tax efforts.
• Ms. Mayer used the very inflammatory term "denier" without qualification and without any further data on Dr. Soon's qualifications or area research. Note: this is an actual violation of the "neutral point of view" requirement.
• Lastly, Ms. Mayer "implies" that efforts to blunt knee-jerk legislation is somehow bad. This is just incorrect.

So, Cullen328, I look forward to seeing details and factual inputs documenting where you ... feel... I have been pressing my point of view, which by Wikipedia standards means, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrisdlx (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)