This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Politics C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Libertarianism C‑class High‑importance Koch network is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I got reverted for using the term Dark money. Is there a more precise term to describe this? Hcobb (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is the correct term. MilesMoney (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dark money article says it is a slang term. See WP:SLANG. And the article itself is POV laden. The scare quotes only makes the POV problem worse. Maybe correct in some people's opinion, but that is not how we write WP articles. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Center for Responsive Politics which runs the website is nonpartisan and independent. Looks like they're mostly reporting numerical facts about campaign spending - see [1] for example. What specifically do you find POV in the article? If there's objection to the term "dark money" I suggest we reword the sentence to read: "At least one fourth of the contributions in the 2012 election campaign that were unreported until after the election, were made by groups associated with the Koch brothers", or something along those lines. Mojoworker (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the term Dark money that is the problem. The article goes beyond defining the term as slang and includes statements like "Yet despite disclosure rules...", "a ... court ruled that all groups spending money.... However, this ruling was overturned on appeal." "Theory of Required Disclosure". etc. Such information belongs in campaign finance and political finance. And once that is properly done, then this article can benefit from using the terms. But slang is not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the correct term "soft money?" TFD (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source says "dark", but WP does not use slang. Given that "dark money" has so much POV built in, we should stay away from this source; otherwise, we are misquoting the source. But, there must be other, quality sources that lay out how much cash they've bestowed on arts, medicine, education, and, oh yes, politics. Indeed, would we use the term "dark money" to describe their non-political donations? I don't think so. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not "misquoting the source" – WP:COPY requires us to reformulate what the source says, in our own words. Slang or otherwise, "dark money" is a commonly used explicable term – and no, it doesn't include any of the philanthropy you enumerated, it refers to electioneering. I've changed the article to paraphrase the source without using the term "dark money", and anyone is free to improve upon it. If you want to contest the source, WP:RSN is thataway. Mojoworker (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful here. Is dark money the same thing as soft money? MilesMoney (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not the same thing. Soft money describes contributions made to political parties for "party building" activities. Mojoworker (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the Koch's make a good target for the left, but it gets a little tiring to see people continuously attack them here. I would remind you both that this article is about the Koch brothers. Not about what some other groups that have some links to them do. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your "you both" comment was directed at me, I take offense at you characterizing me as part of "the left" – if you were to examine my voting history you'd see that's far from the case. I'm not "attacking" the Kochs or anyone else – just trying to address the objections by some editors to the use of the term "dark money". Mojoworker (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft money was unlimited "nonfederal money" from corporations, unions, and individuals that they could contribute to political parties for activities intended to influence state or local elections. Dark money is an epitath and new slang. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor aspect of the sourcing problem stems from the fact that it is an OpenSecretsblog comment. Yes, Maguire is an investigator with Center for Responsive Politics, but is he giving us news or analysis? – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably analysis. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be at all sure that it's not commentary? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, this article mentions the Tea Party directly. You're under a topic ban. MilesMoney (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not in the tea party portal. By that definition, you have been editing a lot of LVM articles. Arzel (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur is banned from the topic, broadly construed. I'm banned from a single article, which I haven't so much as glanced at. Arzel, you are entirely mistaken and not at all helpful. Please mind your business. MilesMoney (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean kind of like your little snipe on my talk page? You should read up on WP:POT. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic, this edit is clearly against consensus and must be reverted. MilesMoney (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, although this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the TPm, the article apparently does, so I shouldn't be editing it, per my topic ban. However, @MilesMoney: is a relatively new editor whose style looks familiar. A checkuser against him and the topic-banned editors seems a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Come to think of it"? The four previous warnings didn't cause you to think about it. Your penitence seems a little empty given that you now find yourself at Arbitration Enforcement. Perhaps you could explain why you tried to recruit Arzel to edit articles that you are explicitly topic banned from, in violation of WP:PROXYING. Are you thinking of that now too? - MrX 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I'm very disappointed by your behavior. If you hadn't retaliated against me with this bizarre accusation, I'd be in your corner right now on WP:AE. Maybe I was wrong about the value of experts; they have to be fair and reasonable people in order to contribute. I won't be defending you again. MilesMoney (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSecrets

I don't see this as a minor issue either. I suggest that the Center for Responsive Politics, an advocacy organization receiving significant funding from George Soros, may not be a RS for characterization of lawful non-profit contributions of their political opponents. I find it interesting that they characterize the non-published contributions of private individuals, companies, groups, and foundations as "dark money". CRP says in the ref that an astounding $274 million was spent in this "dark money" anonymous contribution system in 2012 and that 25% had "ties" (undefined) to the Kochs. Somehow this entirely ignores the anonymous political spending by unions which was many times that number. According to well-publicized news reports, spending by merely the AFL-CIO headquarters and its affiliated unions climbed to $608 million in the 2009 and 2010 election season from $452 million in 2005 and 2006. They spent $316 million in 2011, a nonelection year, amid the fight with Mr. Walker in Wisconsin. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? "Dark money" is money coming from interest groups that are not required to disclose their donors to the public. OpenSecrets clearly mentions labor unions here in this intro.[2] There is a page at the site called "Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2014 Cycle"[3] which clearly shows contributions to Democrats, and when you look down the list you can see Public Sector Unions at #17. The purpose of OpenSecrets is disclosure of money in politics and I have no problem using them as a source. Regarding the Koch's, the source that was reverted here[4] states, "In 2012, more than a third of the record-setting haul brought in by the Koch's flagship nonprofit, Americans for Prosperity -- $115 million -- came from three dark money groups tied to the Kochs that did nothing but give out checks: the Center to Protect Patient Rights (CPPR), Freedom Partners, and TC4 Trust. CPPR's tax filing was first leaked to the Daily Caller." ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insert That was off point. The opensecrets blog post that we are discussing is not their well-respected FEC database. It is opinion or analysis. The ref'd post talks about $274 million in "dark money" political spending (undefined) and asserts that "Koch linked" (undefined) spending was one fourth of that spending. That ignores the billion plus union "dark money" spending entirely. Why? We don't know. The blog post doesn't explain or address it. It is an opinion, an advocacy piece. This particular CRP ref is only reliable source for it's opinion. Further, the fact that "dark money" can not be defined makes this an invalid, inappropriate and controversial addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a moot point – that text is also cited to a secondary source, the Kansas city Star. We could also add some of the other refs that User:MrX enumerates below – even without the ref to the CRP webpage, the sentence is still properly cited. Mojoworker (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. No, the KC Star quotes the OpenSecrets blog entry. It's not a secondary source for validity, only for notability. However, "Dark money" is defined, and we don't know how much union money was dark in 2012. OpenSecrets didn't report that information, for some reason. (I'm shocked.) (And, none of this relates to the TPm, as it cannot engage in lobbying or political contributions.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets blog is classified under news and and analysis, and certainly seems reliable. One way we know that is that other reliable sources cite it. Of course, blogs are not inherently unreliable anyway. Robert Maguire's "dark money" research has also been cited by Bloomberg.

@Arthur Rubin, your presence here would seem to a violation of your ARBCOM imposed topic ban, a fact that you were warned about here and about proxying here. Is it necessary to go to WP:AE to get you respect your topic ban? - MrX 03:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Arthur, don't be shocked – the CRP reports union funding of liberal dark money here. Also, I don't see any mention of a secondary source validity/notability distinction at WP:V – is there another policy that covers it? In any case, it can be attributed to the source in–text: "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, at least one fourth of the "dark money" contributions in the 2012 election campaign were made by groups associated with the Koch brothers." Mojoworker (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's (and my) point wasn't that CRP had ignored or concealed liberal dark money. They had ignored over a billion in union political spending identified and reported on by WSJ and Washington Post among others. Further, I must note that your CRP ref contains nothing about that vast spending and hence vastly overstates "Koch linked" (however defined) political spending percentages. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is that this article is about the brothers political activities. This article already is a magnet for WP:COAT issues, this is another good example. Arzel (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The brothers perform their political activities through groups that they fund, therefore these groups are relevant to the article. MilesMoney (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Get-the-Koch-Brothers-pedia. Let others (like Rachel Maddow) perform their own research about the connections; then, if they are RS, and not pushing POV, and actually say "Koch wrote a check to the Tea Party" we can add it to the project. – S. Rich (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comment was not about the Tea Party, you appear to be barking up the wrong tree. MilesMoney (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woof, woof! – S. Rich (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about this article, not any others. The issue here is the dark money stuff that Arzel just gutted. MilesMoney (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have heard no policy based reasons for omitting this content. We have primary and secondary sources that have researched and reported on dark money funding by the Koch Brothers through a web of organizations that they fund and/or control, for political purposes. Arzel's and S. Rich's arguments against inclusion are not at all convincing and can be summed up as: "it makes the Koch's look bad". By the way, WP:COAT is not a policy or a guideline, nor is it relevant to this content discussion.

Capitalismojo's argument merits some consideration. The Center for Responsive Politics could be considered a primary source but, as Somedifferentstuff rebutted, they present information about political contribution irrespective of party. A discussion about union contributions is interesting and important in general, but has nothing to do with the subject this article.- MrX 13:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought is was pretty clear. That section makes a bunch of allegations about groups linked to the Koch brothers. However, it does not state that this is a political activity of the Koch brothers. It would be far easier to accept these edits as good faith if the same actors were so zelous about attacking their commrades on the left. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "OpenSecrets determined that the Kochs are outpacing all other groups in giving to so-called “dark money” groups that aren’t required to disclose their donors. In fact, at least one in every four dark-money dollars had links to the Kochs who control the Wichita-based Koch Industries, the country’s second-largest privately own company.Source: Kansas City Star
• "The Koch brothers poured $301 million into politically-active groups in 2012, according to a report from the Center for Responsive Politics." Source: The Hill
• "The CPPR, run by former congressional aide Sean Noble, was recently called a part of the "Koch Brothers' Network" of dark money organizations by California's campaign finance watchdog agency." Source: Talking Points Memo
• "A slew of reports released Wednesday reveal that a network of conservative think tanks, funded by multinational corporations and industrialists — most notably Charles and David Koch — comprise a vast dark-money campaign funding mechanism that funnels cash to conservative candidates, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in last year’s recall election."Source: The Capital Times
• "The CMD report also cites numerous SPN ties to the better-known ALEC, including a grant from Donors Capital Fund, which Mother Jones called the “dark money ATM of the conservative movement,”... According to CMD, SPN’s annual meeting in September included representatives from Koch Industries, the Charles Koch Institute, the Charles Koch Foundation and several Koch-backed right-wing groups like Americans for Prosperity." Source: Salon

As I've pointed out to you before, there is no WP:DIRECTINVOLVEMENT policy that supports idea that the Koch's funding of political organizations via another organization is outside of the scope of an article about Political activities of the Koch brothers. - MrX 16:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC), 18:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles above are derived from and restate the CRP blog source. The "Koch link" remains undefined and the term "dark money" also remains undefined slang. So we have controversial and unreliable opinion from an unreliable source for the purpose of advocacy. Hardly a proper addition to a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what MrX said is correct. The Koch link is simply that the money comes from the Koch's through the groups they fund. This is all supported by RS. MilesMoney (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this addition. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are myriad reasons why they might chose to fund various groups - reasons at least as diverse as those groups' observed and stated interests; though there's "no WP:DIRECTINVOLVEMENT" as MrX points out, it stands to reason that we'd still have to demonstrate that Koch companies or the Koch brothers (it's not even defined which example "Koch-linked" refers to, right?) had some intent to fund the interests of the secondary organization(s) to which they are allegedly linked by two or more degrees, otherwise. From what I've seen here and in brief searches elsewhere, to my knowledge, no RS can do that, and it's simply not our place to fabricate/demonstrate that kind of firm connection, implied or explicit. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not stand to reason that we have to conduct original research. In fact, it stands to reason that we are not allowed to conduct original research. Our task is to summarize the Kochs political activities based on our sources, not to "demonstrate" anything. If you think the sources in discussion are unreliable, please be so kind as to take it to WP:RSN.- MrX 13:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo:The Koch link is clearly defined. There are even diagrams, which I'm happy to learn that we can use in this article because they are licensed under Creative Commons. Dark money is clearly defined, and it is not "slang". We have an article; books have been written about it; the media has taken note of it; Google has indexed 546,000 occurrences of it. This is not a BLP. If you still believe that the sources are unreliable, you can take it to WP:RSN.- MrX 13:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost under this article most certainly falls under BLP policy. How can it not? It concerns the political activities of two living people. Second, I have read the source quite carefully. These links are wonderfully weak. One of a myriad of examples. A "Koch linked" group included in this is NFIB. That's f'ing crazy. NFIB has 350,000+ small business members and was founded when David Koch was three. Now its counted in this ref as a key part of the "Koch network" listed because they have the "closest links". I was once involved in NFIB, am I now part of a sinister Koch conspiracy? The answer is no. Another; the 60 Plus seniors organization has 6+ million members are they part of this conspiracy? No. This ref is an (inaccurate) opinion piece by a political opponent of the Koch's. It is not an academic NPOV study of a well accepted political practice. It is not a reliable source and it is in a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also "dark money" was defined on its wikipedia article as slang up right until those arguing the point on this page went to the dark money page and changed it to make it more supportive of their argument. So, yeah, dark money is not a widely accepted and well defined term. Screwing around with one article to make a point on a second article is also inappropriate in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you don't think the sources are reliable, we can go to WP:RSN. If you think WP:BLP should prevent this factual, researched, multiply-cited content from appearing in the article, you may open a case at WP:BLPN. Aside from that, all you seem to have is bare assertions without any factual evidence. Your opinion contradicts our sources and your red herring arguments are not at all convincing. Unfortunately, you are not a reliable source and your original research can not take the place of reliable sources.

"Dark money" is not really slang, nor do we seem to have any sources that claim it is. It's more of a neologism, but since that is also not sourced, we can simply call it a "term" (or a "phrase" if you prefer). - MrX 14:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. To be clear, I was definitely trying to convey that we can't do our own OR on this or any topic. While I have no claim, at this moment, regarding the reliability of the sources which have been called into question by other editors (and therefore have no interest in taking them to RSN right now), even those sources don't demonstrate or even clearly claim a direct connection between groups. Stating there is would be OR. Besides that, other than being a scary-sounding term of at best questionable verifiability and neutrality, there is no indication of why the $86M of "dark money" is even significant in an election season which raised >$2065M (>$2Billion). Lacking any context or clear definition or specifics, it does little to inform readers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree that this article, which explicitly names the "Koch brothers" in its title, is pretty clearly an extension of their respective BLPs. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the term "Dark money" which is not only sourced but can easily be clarified within the article to inform readers. And the argument that 86 million dollars isn't enough to qualify the material isn't even an argument; "or more than one-fourth of all dark money spending reported in 2012 -- came in the form of grants from other Koch-linked groups."[5] - I agree with MrX that arguing about sources here is a waste of time. Take them to RSN. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to any OR issues is to edit faithfully to the sources, which I believe we have done. In this article we write: "At least one fourth of the "dark money" contributions in the 2012 election campaign were made by groups associated with the Koch brothers." Note the absence of the word "direct"This is what I mean when I say red herring, AdventurousSquirrel and Capitalismojo.

Our primary source writes: "At Least 1 in 4 Dark Money Dollars in 2012 Had Koch Links" then "Political money flowed freely in the world of conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch in 2012."

here is a direct quote from a secondary source: "...at least one in every four dark-money dollars had links to the Kochs who control the Wichita-based Koch Industries,..."

and another secondary source: ' "And of the $170 million in political spending reported by those groups to the Federal Election Commission, CRP estimates about $86 million came from Koch-linked organizations."

So, please explain how original research has entered into any of this, because I'm not seeing it. Of course, we can also take this discussion to WP:ORN if folks continue to insist that any of this is original research. - MrX 03:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll certainly take another swing at trying to explain my reasoning, but I think I may not be doing a very good job at that and it may be more productive at this point to first take a step back and analyze the addition more thoroughly. It reads "At least one fourth of the "dark money" contributions in the 2012 election campaign were made by groups associated with the Koch brothers." I see several prominent problems with this addition.

1. Firstly, while I think that "associated" is reasonably synonymous with "linked" (the word used in the sources provided), it perhaps indicates a somewhat firmer connection... But more importantly, both words are so undescriptive as to mean virtually nothing. It could mean that they have an intimate relationship, or several degrees of separation between them. You and I are actually cousins (of some degree) too, but I don't recall receiving an invite from you for Thanksgiving.
2. I have a math problem for anyone who cares to answer - quick: how many dollars is "At least one fourth" of an undefined amount of dollars? Answer: I don't know, I divided by zero and my brain melted. With no context to this proportion and no indication of how much "dark money" was involved or what proportion of the total spending in the election it made up, it is of limited informational value.
3. the neologism "dark money" is almost certainly not a term that most readers will have a good understanding of, and pretty clearly makes a value judgement and is not NPOV. I don't think that needs to be explained further.

Without assigning blame or theorizing about intentions, I think that taken together, these points create a situation in which to the average reader, the line effectively reads "A lot of bad money in the election came from the Koch brothers", while obfuscating several important points, like how much came from them, through whom, and their intent for the donations to the initial organizations to which they donated, and how much control they had over where it went, what role it had in the campaign, and what the significance of its "darkness" is. This line does little to inform readers, and a lot to play into the factless sensationalism game the media likes play. It'd be OR for anything but a statement of opinion, because there is no actual evidence - only commentary and speculation, even if in RSs. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument is original research, so it immediately loses out to a reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There is no OR in the AdSquirrel's discussion that I can see. What specifically do you suggest is OR? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AS went so far as to analyze the literary connotations of "dark" as part of their argument against using source's choice of terminology. If that's not OR, nothing is. MilesMoney (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AdventurousSquirrel: Actually, I think those are mostly fair points that can be addressed and perhaps lead us to a compromise:

1. I propose we use "linked", as most of our sources do. If you have a better idea, please propose it.
2. $86mm/$274mm = 31.4% > ¼
3. I don't entirely agree, but I'm open to considering a more formal phrase such as "hidden political contributions" or "undisclosed political funding" as long as we include "dark money" in parentheses to remain faithful to our sources (see #1).

Would you please propose some alternative wording that addresses your concerns, taking into account my replies? That way, we will have something concrete to work from. - MrX 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well, my major concern is that "linked" or "connected" or "associated with" doesn't convey any useful information. I don't believe any of the RSs I've seen do anything to address that, either. If we don't say how they're linked, then we're just perpetuating bad information and doing the opposite of what a good encyclopedia is supposed to do.
2. I was thinking more along the lines of $86M/$2065M, unless someone can demonstrate why it's significant that it's "dark money" in the grand scheme of the entirety of the 2012 election spending. Otherwise it just seems like arbitrary statistics. Like when baseball announcers randomly recite offhand the last time some mundane but rare occurrence happened. But more importantly, do we know which proportion of that $86M actually originated with the Koch brothers, the subject of this article? Why do they get to take credit for every contribution that's potentially only tangentially related to them? And that's assuming that the unexplained claims of these reliable sources are correct.
3. Those proposals would be more agreeable, in my opinion.

AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. "I don't believe any of the RSs I've seen do anything to address that" Your argument then is with the journalists, which puts it in WP:OR territory. Unless you have a policy-based argument, I suggest we use "linked."
2. The CRP article is fairly clear, but it helps to look at the first diagram.

Here is a wording proposal: "More than a quarter of the undisclosed political funding ("dark money") in the 2012 election campaign was made by groups linked to the Koch brothers. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of $274 million in anonymous 2012 contributions, $86 million is "attributed to donor groups in the Koch network"." If you don't like it, please propose something else so we get out from under this crushing wall of text. - MrX 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insert @MrX:, Sorry - to be clear - which diagram do you mean? This one? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. - MrX 13:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "According to the advocacy group Center for Responsive Politics, $274 million was spent in anonymous contributions for federal electioneering in 2012, $86 million of which they attributed to "donor groups in the Koch network". " I don't see any added value in the term "dark money". Lets stick with the cleanest, clearest ref'd statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do that because your paraphrase of "dark money" is inaccurate and contradicts our sources. That's why we should just use the term, just like our source did. MilesMoney (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InsertI did not paraphrase "dark money", I used the description directly from the CRP/Opensecrets article we are discussing. It thus does not contradict the source. We have already discussed the problems of the term "dark money", using the source but avoiding the redolent term is a sound way forward. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the material on their blog page? With that in mind, it needs to include "according to Robert Maguire, writing on the CRP OpenSecretsblog, ...." Rationale: WP:BLOGS and WP:NEWSBLOG must be applied. (But then, does using the CRP link comport with "newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations" ?) – S. Rich (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maguire is on their staff, so no. MilesMoney (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Kansas City Star article is not a blog. Mojoworker (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] So we cite the Star, and avoid the blog comments by Maguire. (But does he cite the Star? I don't see him doing so.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we cite both reliable sources. MilesMoney (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. We are citing both the primary and a secondary source (with or without the proposed in–text attribtuion). Mojoworker (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo: I think we are getting closer, although MilesMoney raises a valid point. I think it could be original research to redefine a term that our sources use. I'm flexible though, if we can come to an editorial consensus. I do object to referring to CRP as an advocacy group. They are more properly referred to as "a non-profit, nonpartisan research group". 'Advocacy' has negative connotations which runs afoul of WP:NPOV. - MrX 21:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it provides additional clarification, I have no objection to the addition of: 'According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of $274 million in anonymous 2012 contributions, $86 million is "attributed to donor groups in the Koch network"'. Mojoworker (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a workable phrasing. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It sound like we have a rough consensus then, unless there are other objections. - MrX 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase should be "at least $86 million". There's still a lot of gray in dark money. Hcobb (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly made the edit based on an assumption of consensus, including Hcobb's suggestion. Of course we can still tweak the wording if needed. I would still like to see dark money in parentheses, but it's not a deal breaker.- MrX 20:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs a qualifier, e.g., "according to Robert Maguire, writing on the CRP OpenSecretsblog, ...." If consensus won't preclude the material based on BLOG, the requirement of NEWSBLOG should be followed. – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for the reasons stated by MilesMoney. I don't think WP:NEWSBLOG would apply since the article was not an opinion piece. Do we have any reason to believe that CRP would disavow Maguires research? - MrX 20:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our sources say denial. We have to be especially careful, because this is a BLP, but we don't have to use the slanted terms chosen by the subjects. MilesMoney (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source does not say “denial of anthropogenic global warming”. I've changed the title of this section accordingly. Sounds reasonable? Skarebo (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only controversy here was over whether what the Koch's call skepticism is indeed denial. The source I cited confirms that it is. There's no question about whether the subject of that skepticism denial is anthropogenic global warming. MilesMoney (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not controversial, but if it were, this would settle it. MilesMoney (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 references in the section. The first, by Rust, uses the term "debate". She uses the term "skeptic" once. She does not use the term "denial". So there are 9 more references to consider. What do they say? But, if we start counting denial/skeptic/debate noses, are we drifting into a balance problem because one side or the other comes up with more noses? Use the term "controversy", if only because we have WP article on it. It is the NPOV Wikipedia method, and there is no debate about that. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section refers to their funding of skeptics. I have returned it to proper verbiage. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section title, at present, is about "anthropogenic" causes. The section title itself must reflect NPOV, and then with proper balance, the sentences supported by each reference can be tweaked towards what they say, whether it's great taste or less filling (and the funding of people involved in the controveries. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can everyone please stop reverting each other and focus on discussing the issue here. Arzel and MilesMoney, you especially need to consider whether reverting is a good idea especially given your involvement in the last edit war. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left Arzel's version alone and took this issue to WP:FTN for feedback, which I've acted upon. This is a simple matter: "skepticism" is a euphemism that violates WP:NPOV, so we can't use it. The mainstream media calls it denialism, as it contradicts mainstream science. We should follow their example. MilesMoney (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a load. You had one person, who happens to be someone that is your ideological identical and supporter on many articles, agree with your biased presentation. On top of that this one editor has had ONE other comment on the FTN (in a LVM related situation as well).....seems very coincidental....Arzel (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A single comment on a noticeboard by any user falls far short of being sufficient to support an edit. On top of that, FTN was not the appropriate noticeboard for this matter. There have been policies -policies- cited in recent edit summaries that should drive the removal of any characterization at all ("anthropogenic", "skepticism" or "denialism") from the section title. The title should be simply either "Climate change" or "Global warming", and that is all that is needed to describe the section neutrally. Miles' edit should be reversed. Roccodrift (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone uses the phrase "Global Warming's Denier Elite". Our sources seem to establish that the Koch's are not just passively questioning climate change science, but are actually using their political influence to oppose climate change legislation. - MrX 18:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since climate change denialism is fringe science, I went to the right place. MrX is correct about our sources supporting "denialism". Nobody opposing it has offered anything that might be mistaken for a reasonable basis.

Oh, and User:Callanecc, please note how I allowed the whitewashed version to stay, escalated to the appropriate notice board, and then acted on its suggestion. In contrast, Arzel edit-warred immediately to revert cited material. Based on this, I think it's clear that there is no equivalence here. MilesMoney (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, be that as it may, our naming policies dictate that the section title merely delineate the subject matter without interpreting it or making a statement about it. The topic area is either "Global warming" or "Climate change". The title itself shouldn't contain content. Roccodrift (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite following you. The headings should summarize the content in the section. The content is not about climate change; it's about the Koch's using their political power to influence legislation. I'm open to alternative wording, but your suggestions are imprecise, and the previous heading "Global warming skepticism" is overly euphemistic. - MrX 19:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section in itself says nothing about the Koch brothers denying global warming (or global climate change). And clearly, we cannot have a headline that uses stronger word than the content in the section. Especially not when we're talking about an issue that is BLP sensitive. I am very inclined to change the headline immediately, on the basis that possible BLP violations are to stay out of an article until the issue is settled (a policy last confirmed by ArbCom in the Manning case). Iselilja (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would choose "denial" over "skepticism" any day, but as far as the headline goes, the word "denial" seems out of place when compared with the other subheadings in the section where the header describes the issue and only the context details if they are "for" or "against" it. So, I would support changing the heading to "Global Warming" but only for consistency, not for any NPOV concerns.Quietmarc (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section is not on global warming, it's on their funding of denialism. There cannot be a BLP issue given the strength of the reliable sources that use this term, so anyone who claims this is mistaken and needs to do some more basic research. MilesMoney (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection on "Wisconsin" is not about Wisconsin, it's about their donations to particular interests. "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is not about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it is about their opposition to the act. This is what I'm getting at with my consistency comment. I agree with you MilesMoney that we should not hide their fringe viewpoint, but I don't think removing the word from the sub-heading makes a big difference.Quietmarc (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for consistency. In fact, I think you've made a good argument for fixing the other headings so that they're more informative. For example, adding "Opposition" to "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". MilesMoney (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me.Quietmarc (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at it. MilesMoney (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have strayed into NPOV in the other direction and/or made the writing less clear, but I'm just trying to ease my way back into wikipedia editing, so I'm content to sit back and let things evolve as they may. Quietmarc (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When have the Koch brothers ever denied that the climate changes? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obtuse, and it doesn't matter. Their money speaks much louder than their words. Their money has paid for fringe research that just happens to support a point to view favorable to their business and political objectives. They have specifically used their money and political influence to obstruct climate change legislation. Perhaps we should call the section "Political funding and lobbying to prevent laws curtailing carbon emissions even though scientific consensus affirms anthropogenic global warming" - MrX 21:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It matters a great deal, funding groups to campaign against legislation is not "denial" in any sense of the word. So Global warming is obviously the more neutral header, or perhaps "Stance on global warming" would also work. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS's question was flippant, to be sure, but he also (unintentionally, I think) points out a valid issue. We have sourcing that shows the Kochs are opposed to regulating carbon emissions, but some editors are trying to take that and make the leap to say they therefore hold a particular scientific opinion. But what if the Kochs are merely trying to protect their business interests, and don't really hold the position that editors want to assign to them? What if they actually believe that climate change is a problem, but disagree that regulating carbon emissions is the correct way to address it? I think before we can say the Kochs believe one thing or another about climate change, we need sources that explicitly say so. We definitely can't look at their political spending and draw a conclusion about their scientific beliefs. Roccodrift (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm not going to argue this point any longer, because I don't think it's that important and I can live with the current heading wording. - MrX 22:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Roccodrift's question "What if they actually believe that climate change is a problem, but disagree that regulating carbon emissions is the correct way to address it?", given their known positions on other issues, it is entirely plausible that they [1] believe that the climate is warming, [2] believe that the increase is caused by human activity, [3] believe that a warmer climate is undesirable, [4] believe that reducing atmospheric CO2 will solve the problem, [5] believe that the US alone reducing CO2 output will solve the problem even if China has huge increases in CO2 output, but [6] do not believe that increasing the size and power of the federal government will result in reduced CO2 emissions. If they believe that, how can you call them denialists? That would be like saying that anyone who is against making alcohol consumption illegal in the US -- again -- is a denialist on the question of whether drunk driving kills people. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're past that. We'll never really know what they think unless they announce it to the world. What we do know is that they fund studies and lobby against climate change legislation. I an going to start a new section to discuss you recent bold addition.- MrX 12:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are past that, why do we have a prominent quote about Greenpeace calling them "kingpins of climate science denial"? Take a look at this and this. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation donated $150,000 to the BEST study, more than any other single organization.

Elizabeth Flock from U.S. News & World Report says:

"University of California-Berkeley Physics professor Richard A. Muller, who led the new study, told Whispers that he believes the Koch brothers really do 'want to get the science clarified.'

'People think they can look into the minds of Charles and David Koch,' says Muller, who himself was previously a climate change denier. 'But I have had conversations with them, where they are interested in the science and the proof, so that these issues [on climate change] would be resolved.'"[6]

So yes, I do think that our putting the Greenpeace "kingpins of climate science denial" accusation in such a prominent position is a NPOV problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to the Mayer quote, but this discussion was about the Global Warming Section of the article, as was my above comment. I'm not sure how the Green peace example is any different than the content that you added earlier today? For example, " “I can’t figure out how they can look at the data and not see the overwhelming benefits of the free market,” said Richard Fink." Is Richard Fink's opinion more authoritative than that of Greenpeace? Another example of a potential NPOV problem is is the self-serving quotes from Charles Koch. - MrX 04:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace is an advocacy group, not a news organization or a scholarly research organization. We can't trust Greenpeace for controversial claims when BLP policy is in play. Roccodrift (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenpeace ref was corroborative, and note that they have been cited by third parties. The Langrock ref has denier in the title ("Global Warming's Denier Elite"), which seems a pretty convincing indictment of the Koch's political lobbying efforts to oppose climate change legislation. - MrX 19:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Rocco's complaints are baseless and kind of strange. MilesMoney (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Langrock mentions no less than 9 different parties. It talks about the Koch's lobbying efforts but doesn't assign any particular scientific view to them. Inferences made in the title are unconvincing when the piece talks about 8 other people or groups of people. Langrock might be corroborative next to a more solid source (more solid than Greenpeace, in other words), but doesn't stand on its own.

Greenpeace fails RS here for obvious reasons. They simply aren't neutral, nor is there any editorial accountability. If this contention is valid, surely there is a source with a better reputation. No? Roccodrift (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will see what I can find. - MrX 20:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo felt it necessary to revert my rewording/expansion of the lede, which was characterized as "awkward". I would like to better understand this objection, given that my entire edit was reverted. - MrX 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit had both pros and cons. In one sense, it was an improvement in that it more closely followed Wikipedia conventions for opening paragraphs. But... it was indeed somewhat awkward. It didn't flow well. It probably would have worked better had it been broken down into shorter sentences. Roccodrift (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the challenge was that I was trying to preserve some of the existing content, and yes, some of the sentences were long. I will try revising it. - MrX 22:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is something of a challenge. I think it was awkwardly phrased, but that said I think the effort to more clearly craft the lede isa step in the right direction. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I support the idea in principle; it needs to be done. We just need a little more refinement in the execution. Roccodrift (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was too bad. How about:

Political activities of the Koch brothers refers to the financial and political influence of Charles G. and David H. Koch on United States (US) politics. This influence is seen both directly and indirectly via various advocacy and lobbying organizations in which they have an interest.

The Koch brothers are the sons of Fred C. Koch, who founded the second-largest privately held company in the US, Koch Industries, of which they own 84%.^[1] After buying out two other brothers' interests, they remain in control of the family business and fortune which they inherited from their father, as well as the Koch Family Foundations. Quietmarc (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer this version of the opening sentence:

"The political activities of the Koch brothers include the financial and political influence of Charles G. and David H. Koch on United States (US) politics."

Roccodrift (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems fine to me. - MrX 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great improvements to the lead. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (and to everyone who helped). - MrX 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon has boldly added a new section, Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard, expanding on The Weekly Standard's rebuttal of Mayer's New Yorker article. I'm pretty sure that similar edits have been met with contention in the past. My concern is with the extent of the material, especially the 497 word quote which is not only WP:UNDUE but probably a WP:COPYVIO according to our policies. The material also needs third-party citations (and analysis) in my opinion.- MrX 12:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the size of the quote.

Quote from Jane Mayer article in The New Yorker: 156 words, 1063 characters

Source: 9935 words, 63606 characters

Percentage quoted: 1.68%

Quote from Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard (before reduction): 497 words, 3092 characters.

Source: 8414 words, 52118 characters

Percentage quoted: 5.93%

Quote from Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard (after reduction): 304 words, 1899 characters.

Source: 8414 words, 52118 characters.

Percentage quoted: 3.64%

Applicable copyright law: [7]

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Various organizations have published percentages that they consider to be fair use. For example, Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri says that "For works of 2,500-4,999 words, 500 words may be copied." [8] and Kain & Associates, Attorneys at Law (a South Florida based Intellectual Property law firm) says that "A U.S. District Court (trial court) has found that when teachers at an educational institution (for example, the University of Georgia) use less than ten percent (10%) of a copyrighted book, then such use is fair use and does not constitute copyright infringement. Cambridge University Press v. Becker, Case no. 1:08-cv-01425 (N.D. Ga May 11, 2012)" [9]

Both quotes have exactly one third-party citation/analysis at present.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more comfortable with the reduced quote, and I agree that it is fair use from a legal perspective. Just bear in mind that our policy is actually more restrictive than what fair use would seem to permit.- MrX 18:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I am, of course, happy to follow consensus if the consensus is that 3.64% is still too large. I would also note that, far from being "The Weekly Standard's rebuttal of Mayer's New Yorker article", Mayer's New Yorker article isn't mentioned until the 63rd paragraph (out of 87 paragraphs total), and only after mentioning Koch critics the Buffalo Beast, MSNBC, the Huffington Post, the White House, NPR (inerviewing Mayer), Anonymous, Rachel Maddow, Mike Papantonio, Ed Shultz, Frank Rich, Howard Dean, Air America, Moveon.org, the Center for American Progress, and Greenpeace. It really is a critical overview of many Koch critics, just as the Jane Mayer article is a supportive overview of many Koch critics. I think that both articles do a good job of describing and commenting upon the major Koch critics and make some very good points, but that either one alone would be too biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole thing got cut, which is overkill. MilesMoney (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back. I would really like to hear a logical reason why the Jane Mayer article in The New Yorker section is OK but the Matthew Continetti article in The Weekly Standard section is not. Both are highly opinionated editorials from mainstream news sources about the exact same thing; what a bunch of sources say about the political activities of the Koch brothers. Both start with a quote of approximately the same size (and we are discussing cutting the larger one down some more) and both are followed by a paragraph giving the reaction to the editorial by other editorial writers. The only reason I can think of for killing one and not the other is that someone only wants one POV in the article -- either 100% anti-Koch or 100% pro-Koch. The be encyclopedic, we need to show that they have plenty of detractors[10] and plenty of supporters.[11] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somedifferentstuff made an edit with the edit comment "Trimmed quote to roughly same size as Mayer quote per WP:Npov." Nothing wrong with that, of course; besides giving the two quotes roughly the same WP:WEIGHT, making the article less wordy is a desirable goal in itself.

Alas, the result left highly inflammatory statements in the Mayer quote like "kingpin of climate science denial" and "their ideological network is known as the 'Kochtopus'" while deleting highly inflammatory statements like "they all slept through Economics 101" and "liberals think conservatives are evil while conservatives think liberals are stupid" in the Continetti quote.

I redid the cutting in an effort to keep it balanced. The count after I finished my edit was:

Mayer: 125 words, 871 characters.

Continetti: 130 words, 826 characters.

Mayer is 5.4% larger by character count, Continetti is 4.0% larger by word count.

As always, I am open to discussions as to how we can improve the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know we can't use videos as sources but there is material in this video that I imagine can be retrieved. Here's my question. Part of the video deals with how Charles Koch is playing a huge role in the Economics department at FSU. Given that this is a state university, can it be construed as a facet of political activity? Here's the link: [12] --- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is Maddow, it is all but impossible to assume that it is being presented in a neutral tone. As such pulling anything from it is equally problematic. Construing this as political activity, aside from the basic issue of the source, is Original Research. Arzel (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can use videos as sources. We should be able to find a transcript of this and possibly some secondary sources. (I happened to see this segment, although I only infrequently watch news programs.)- MrX 13:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we can't. And you should know better than to use 3 very biased sourced synthesised with one actual fact to push your POV. Maddow, Mother Jones...ect.. What you are including is a fact and then tying it to biased opinion to promote a POV. Not only is it a violation of WP:SYNTH but it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Arzel (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit by Hcobb added some very informative information from the Washington post. Overall, it is a good addition to the article. That being said, Hcobb singled out four groups:

Republican Jewish Coalition
United States Chamber of Commerce
National Rifle Association
National Federation of Independent Business

Which raise a question of WP:WEIGHT; how were those four groups chosen from the 23 groups listed on the chart? Was the selection influenced by bias, conscious or unconscious? It certainly does match the "Koch brothers support conservative republicans" narrative, but all evidence points to the Koch brothers being libertarian, not conservative.

I did some research, and found a breakdown of which groups got the most money.[13]

The top ten were:

Center to Protect Patient Rights  $142,712,000
Americans for Prosperity          $38,019,800
60 Plus Assn                      $33,750,000
American Future Fund              $27,640,000
Themis Trust                      $15,706,000
SG C4 Trust (Public Notice)       $15,177,943
Concerned Women for America       $10,938,600
Generation Opportunity            $9,170,000
American Commitment               $7,874,985
EvangChr4 Trust                   $5,790,000

Of the four that Hcobb chose, none were in the top ten. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce got $3 million and the National Federation of Independent Business got $1.6 million.

Now it is tempting to just replace the four groups with the top four listed above, but that isn't right either. Look at the graphic by the sixth paragraph of the opensecrets.org page. Now look at this.

So, how do we unravel this mess and show the reader the true picture of where the money is flowing? Any suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'd have to say that the only group worth singling out is the top recipient, since it got ~36% of the money. The rest should be collapsed into "... and 22 other organizations." Roccodrift (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One source is the Washington Post reporting a study they did with the Center for Responsive Politics, while the other is OpenSecrets Blog which is published by the Center for Responsive Politics. In the first report, the NRA and the other groups listed are among the major recipients, and the CPPR is reported as a funding organization, while in the second it is the major recipient. Probably best to find the original report they are both using. TFD (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can only go by the sources, but if it is felt the sources are being partisan that is a basis for worry, perhaps better sources can be found.

As to just the top entry 'Center to Protect Patient Rights' I had a quick look and it seems to give money to loads of other groups including later entries on this same list. I agree this really is a mess., it would be nice if some source did work on trying to untangle the thread to see where the money actually ends up. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]