Talk:Koch family foundations

Claude R. Lambe

The article should give a little more context about Claude Lambe. Who was he?

Charles Koch himself says "Claude was a close family friend who left his estate under my care." http://www.cgkfoundation.org/creating-a-science-of-liberty/ Creating a Science of Liberty Based on a speech given by Charles Koch at an Institute for Humane Studies Research Colloquium January 11, 1997 "In 1982, the year after Claude Lambe died, WE established the Claude R. Lambe (CRL) Fellowship Program. Claude was a close family friend who left his estate under my care. He had a strong interest in both the free society and young people, so the Fellowship Program seemed a natural."

http://www.counterpunch.org/martens10192010.html "The Koch Empire and Americans for Prosperity A CounterPunch Investigation By PAM MARTENS -- October 19, 2010

Claude Lambe was a real estate developer and insurance broker in Kansas. He invested in a company formed by Fred Koch in 1934, the Buffalo Oil Corporation. Lambe’s wife, Pauline, died in 1976; Lambe died in 1981. According to a Koch Industries publication, Charles Koch was left in charge of Lambe’s estate. Charles Koch and his wife, Elizabeth, serve as Directors on the Foundation’s board. Hopefully, Lambe wanted to fund all of these right wing causes because that’s what his foundation has been doing since his death."

Charitable Status

Greetings. As per several WP Policies, we must be careful with out edits. While it is true, the status as charitable is questioned by some, putting too much weight in this is WP:UNDUE. Also, pushing something WP:UNDUE like this hints at WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. To sum it up, this:

Some critics have suggested that the Kochs’ approach has subverted the purpose of tax-exempt giving. By law, charitable foundations must conduct exclusively nonpartisan activities that promote the public welfare. A 2004 report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a watchdog group, described the Kochs’ foundations as being self-serving, concluding, “These foundations give money to nonprofit organizations that do research and advocacy on issues that impact the profit margin of Koch Industries.”

Does not verify this:

Their status as "charitable" is questioned.

DaltonCastle (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So, how would you prefer to see that phrased? How about "Critics claim the organizations subvert tax-exempt status." I'm also suggesting the more usual and customary "private foundation", see section below. Dredmorbius (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And regards UNDUE: the entire thrust of the article cited is in fact the Foundation's political activity. Sources argue against your characterization. Dredmorbius (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that is a misreading of both the article and of UNDUE. Undue suggests that material must be included in the proportion to its appearance in reliable sources, not to its proportion within one individual source. Almost no RS sources dispute the charitable nature of the foundations (billions to education, art, and health research seems to argue against that view). Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Charity" vs "Private Foundation"

I'm unable to find a reliable, neutral, third party source to support the claim inserted yesterday that the KFF are "charitable", other than the self-labeling within several of the organizations' names themselves. The term "charitable" was substituted for the more neutral (WP:NPOV) "nonprofit organization", though I suggest a third option below. The principle reference for the "charitable organizations" claims is in fact research into political activity: Covert Operations The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama, which includes references (which I've directly quoted an inserted into the article) questioning the foundation's "charitable" nature. That is, in fact, the only time "charitable" (or any variant) appears as anything other than the name of one of the foundations in question.

Characterizing the direct message of the New Yorker article as "WP:COATRACK" assumes bad faith.

From the IRS, Foundations:

Every organization that qualifies for tax exemption as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) is a private foundation unless it falls into one of the categories specifically excluded from the definition of that term (referred to in section 509(a)).

(Bold emphasis added.)

Further, on public charities vs. private foundations!from!Grantspace?:

a private foundation as a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization having a principal fund managed by its own trustees or directors. Private foundations maintain or aid charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public good, primarily through the making of grants to other nonprofit organizations.

Public charities generally derive their funding or support primarily from the general public, receiving grants from individuals, government, and private foundations.

Checking for usage on other foundations of various stripes, I find that the following NPV language is used:

• Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: "private foundation"
• Rockefeller Foundation: philanthropic organization and private foundation
• Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: philanthropic nonprofit organization.
• Open Society Foundations (Soros): an international grantmaking network.
• Omidyar Network: a self-styled "philanthropic investment firm,"

"Private foundation" seems to be the defensible, neutral, customary, and legal term.

I'm also curious how "self-described" is construed as WP:POV. Self-described here is a self-evident aspect of the organizations. Dredmorbius (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(insert) The idea we can remove charity from the lead is odd. All US charities are catagorized under IRS regulation. The fact that some charities are catagorized for bureaucratic purposes as "public" or "operating" and others as "private" or "grantmanking" does not change their status as charities or their charitable nature. While I understand the animus of the political campaigns against the Kochs, that does not change the plain meaning of English. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions. I think a good step forward in terms of neutrality would be to include in the article the fact of the filing status of each fund. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nature of operations seems more relevant.

Hrm. Capitalismojo. Thought that handle rang a bell: Koch Industries Implicated in Multi-Year Wikipedia "Whitewashing" Scandal Dredmorbius (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Koch Whitewashing -- DailyKos

Koch Industries Implicated in Multi-Year Wikipedia "Whitewashing" Scandal TUE SEP 08, 2015 AT 07:29 PM PDT

This evidence strongly suggests that, over a period of YEARS (at least 2012), individual accounts directed by Koch Industries and/or operating on its behalf have: 1) Systematically removed content containing specific citations that paint the company in a negative light. 2) Responded to negative content with a "playbook" that consists of objecting on the grounds of various arcane Wikipedia rules and/or making broad sweeping objections while steadfastly refusing to engage with or discuss the specific negative content itself. 3) Posted company statements, and other astroturf that links to company-owned websites, both in place of and in addition to organic Wikipedia content.

The evidence presented is strongly suggestive of a pattern of long-term abuse, by multiple users, who have diligently worked to exclude and divert negative information from pages related to the Kochs over a multi-year period. Furthermore, the sophisticated efforts to divert negative information from SERPS and seeming use of a "playbook" to suppress negative content are suggestive of an organized reputation management effort.

...

Users Arthur Rubin, springee, Capitalismojo, and AdventurousSquirrel repeatedly tried to cite arcane Wikipedia rules and make broad statements that the content wasn't relevant. However, when we posted a complete list of specific proposed changes, each with supporting detail, it was impossible for them to continue the ruse.

Dredmorbius (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is in the Daily Kos; which has a long-time policy of blackwashing the Koch brothers, as well as all conservatives. Their opinion might be noted in their article, but not elsewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A PNAS Paper is producing POV?

I undid this deletion of referenced material [1]. There are many scientific publications that show clearly that the Koch family foundations are leading and highly influencial sponsors of manufactured doubt in climate sciences. This is widely known and was now also published in PNAS, a leading scientifc journal, almost as important as Nature and Science. The whole article here is based on media reports, some of them highly dubious, and a PNAS paper produced POV? Not really. Removing such a section by falsely claiming that this is POV is ridiculous. In fact, leaving out such important facts is POV. If you need to know the exact sentence in the paper: "Most importantly for the purposes of this study, the data also include a measure of corporate funding from entities that prior literature on contrarian movements have identified as especially influential (8, 9, 14, 15): ExxonMobil (EM) and the Koch family foundations (KFF)." Andol (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Per the authors Appendix, page 3 "Reliably assessing the influence of corporate benefactors has thus been extremely difficult. To overcome this difficulty, I rely on indicators of giving from two corporate and philanthropic actors in American politics: ExxonMobil (EM) and Koch family foundations (KFFs)." He does not say they are "especially influential". Also, he says EM or KFF gave money to various entities; accordingly, it is improper to tie the two together by saying "They are regarded as especially influencial in funding climate contrarian movements, together with ExxonMobil.[2]" – S. Rich (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Also, throwing in EM is off-topic material. 19:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the paper itself says that they are especially influencial, as I was showing above, but your version is ok, too. So I'm not complaining. And I understand that Exxon is not important here, I just wanted my citation to be close. Andol (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Its not the source per se that is POV. Its is 1. how this information is being used and 2. how it alters the page. This constitutes a WP:COATRACK. This article has been vandalized several times in the past by a number of POV editors who want to damn the Kochs. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. The Koch Family Foundations were not founded to be climate change deniers. Altering the page to make it appear that this is their primary goal is a Coatrack to turn this into an attack page. And, again, this is not the place for this. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the place for neutral information. By deleting important information that reflect the scientific consensus you are the one who is doing the POV. That the Kochs are important and influencial climate change deniers and supporting think tanks that spread doubt on these issues is widely accepted in science. This paper (and much more) proves that. That has absolutely nothing to do with WP:COATRACK. Their funding is important, they are among the most important funders, and so this is absolutely on topic in this article. You write that it is how the inforation is used. How is it used? It just describes a fact as a fact. People who have sponsored climate change denial are called people who have sponsored climate change denial. A proven fact is described as a fact. As it should be. And as evidenced in scientific literature. And there are several papers proving this, for example doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7. To me, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. I don't want to damn the Kochs, but what I want is a neutral article that reflects all important issues and does not only describe the good ones and lacks the darker sides. Sugarcoating is as bad as damning. And that is the case, here and even more over there. Andol (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Charles Koch Foundation - Incorrect attribution of contributions to Dr Willie Soon

I'm new to editing, and uncomfortable making any edits here without checking with the community. In reading about the Koch foundations, i came across this error: Grants to Dr Willie Soon are attributed to the "Charles Koch Foundation" but are probably from the defunct "Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation." "Grants from the Foundation include $230,000 over 14 years to Dr. Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics who says that most global warming is driven by the sun."[23] - First, the "Charles Koch Foundation" originated in 2011, so it couldn't have made contributions any contributions over most of that time. - The referenced 2015 Guardian article does not support "14 years" and identifies the "Charles G Koch Foundation" as a grantor, without specific timing. The reference is in a paragraph that begins identifying ExxonMobil contributions in 2010. - It is most likely that the support of W. Soon should be addressed under the "Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation" heading. JD2020 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Category:Climate change denial

@Comatmebro: can you explain how the category is POV pushing when we cover climate change denial in the body of the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There are consistent attempts to paint the phrase "climate denial" over this page and related pages. It is a non-neutral term with an obvious slant that doesn't belong on WP. How many times do you need the phrase on the page before you, and all the other drive-by editors are satisfied? Comatmebro (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Its a neutral term which we will use per WP:NPOV as thats the term that WP:RS use. I'd like our use to reflect how often its used in WP:RS, that is after all how NPOV works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a neutral term in the sense that 'Holocaust denial' is a neutral term. People who are skeptical of the extreme claims of activists are labeled as 'climate deniers' in order to prejudice readers against them. Such people do not call themselves climate deniers, and shouldn't be labeled as such, any more than abortion rights activists should be called 'baby murderers.' MarkinBoston (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)