Talk:Koch network

Criminal justice reform section

I added a paragraph on The Koch's and various right-wing "think tanks" who have been pushing to make it harder to prosecute white collar crimes, citing The Huffington Post. The New York Times is also reporting this. This is hardly undue information and deserves mention in this section of the article, although one biased editor is making accusations this constitutes POV and reverted it, which is utter nonsense. I'm restoring the section given that the NY Times is also reporting this, and adding it as a citation.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Be more civil in your dealings here. It is your edits that constitute a POV. Until you can present this information in a neutral fashion it will be removed. Do you understand this? Im willing to assume good faith and explain it to you if you are confused. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes - it is one thing to explain and add this information in a neutral fashion, in a way that does not imply bias. However, the information as it read did not necessarily do this. Like the above-user has already mentioned, there are ways to execute this which are explained through Wikipedia's policy. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I rewrote the section for neutrality. Speaking of POV, this section looked like a puff piece prior to my additions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: I restored and reworded some of the neutral material you excised, and welcome comment by all involved – either here or at WP:NPOVN if necessary. To say that the "source does not support (the) information" is disingenuous at best. You guys ought to AGF and not throw a bunch of Wiki–mnemonics at C.J. like he's some n00b. It's you guys that are the Johnny-come-latelies, only having been here since 2012. Mojoworker (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusatory tones and insulting terminology. Especially when you are by far the more inexperienced editor. Your edits border on POV. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: How would you non-POV the addition of the Koch's spy activities I added, which was pretty neutral, considering?

This is what I added:

"On 18 November, 2015, it was revealed that the Koch Brothers are operating their own spy network – operating out of Arlington, Virginia – seeking out their "liberal opponents", in an effort to disrupt liberal activities, and reshape American life. The staff consists of 25 employees, which include a CIA analyst."

The words are not really my own, but came from the article which reported straight from the sources. So? Please address your perceived POV. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

References

For one thing, "spy" is POV (especially in the heading), and that word is not used anywhere in the citation. Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgebattle: this link to the New Yorker article "Do the Kochs Have Their Own Spy Network?", may be useful to you. Mojoworker (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political activities of the Koch brothers. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/Foundations.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another 'libertarian' organisation

Is the article in Wired KOCH BROTHERS ARE CITIES' NEW OBSTACLE TO BUILDING BROADBAND reporting on activities by Taxpayers Protection Alliance by Susan Crawford a blog or by a reporter and edited? I think a number of other references on the page are okay and they seem to have been involved in a number of similar attacks on communal efforts. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

James M. Buchanan, ALEC, & Constitutional Convention

HOW does a page exist called "Political Activities of the Koch Brothers," and yet there is no mention of their support of ALEC, their adherence to, and implementation of the ideas of James M. Buchanan, as well as their moves to promote a new Constitutional Convention in order to drastically alter the political and economic course of America? Have their minions managed to completely whitewash Wikipedia to cover their tracks? Gil gosseyn (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Gil gosseyn, It isn't there because no one has added it in a neutral way with reliable sources to verify the information. All it takes is one editor who is interested in adding the information to dig up the reliable sources and summarize what they say. Since you appear to be interested you can add it yourself. ~ GB fan 11:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

IS there a neutral way to describe the attempted subversion of the Constitution, as well as the destruction of the environment in order to further enrich themselves by allowing the oil, gas, and coal industries to operate unrestricted? Gil gosseyn (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

State facts, with reliable sources, as dispassionately as possible. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:D5B1:CA70:49E8:49C5 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have useful content

even if people don't want to use it as a source. [1] Doug Weller talk 20:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)