Talk:Koch network

Request for comment notice: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election from Koch-related funds

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

This is an update to the request for comment and a request for wider participation. The RfC question asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to the funding section of a political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. The main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The discussion of the RfC centers on the due weight of investigative journalism into the sources of funding of a political advocacy group that is generally not legally required to disclose their funders. Attention from uninvolved editors with some experience with articles on political advocacy groups, and with the appropriate application of WP:DUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:COATRACK, is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. This request for comment will probably be closing next week, so please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I hit the wrong button; however, the thread should be removed (not archived) as highly biased canvassing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds are welcome. By most of us. Thanks! Hugh (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our due weight content policy remain central to the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS Spamming and excessive cross-posting.: Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it.

Campaigning: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the level of campaigning and canvassing is quite egregious. I particularly find the posting on Citizens United [1] to be out of scope, especially when you consider that Hugh conspicuously failed to post the RFC notice at WikiProject Conservatism, one of the four WikiProjects AFP is currently a part of. I actually think the Citizens United posting, in which three different editors have attempted to undo the canvassing (he has reverted it all three times) is edit warring, and I think a posting at the edit warring noticeboard may be in order as the bad behavior only seems to be escalating. I'll note the irony that despite all of the canvassing, it looks like the RFC will not go Hugh's way. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds are welcome. By most of us. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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)