Talk:Fred C. Koch/Archives/2013

MIT Alumni database

Reviewing the MIT Alumni database, I was unable to find any records for a Fred Koch either attending the Institute or recieving a degree. If his degree was awarded under a different name, that should be clarified. For now I have removed the reference. Amasa walker III 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you try Fredrick C. Koch? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revised article

{{request edit}}

As the template message at the top of the current article indicates, it could use a lot of work. So, I have done a lot of work tracking down information and finding verification to improve it. The result, I believe, is a much more focused and readable article, and you'll find it in my user space here. Among many changes, the article now includes an infobox, corrects his place of death and includes the exact date, includes more background info, provides a more detailed summary of his business career, and includes more about his political views as well. The only thing I have axed is the paragraph about his son's art collections; they have Wikipedia articles and that material may or may not be worth covering there, but it doesn't belong here.

Because Koch Industries is a client of my employer, I'd like for someone else to review the article and agree or disagree that it is worthy of replacing the current version. Likewise, I'd hope you would move the article into place yourself, or give me the nod to do so. I just want to make certain I have consensus before implementing a wholesale revision. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Shirik (talk · contribs) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge request

Greetings. The article Koch family is not needed. I think the content could be in Fred C. Koch. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. That makes little sense to me. Please explain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you have so many articles about the same people? Wikipedia does not do this for anybody else, not even George Washington. Why do we need separate biographies for Fred and each of his four children, their company, their foundations, their political activities, and this one for their family? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because someone wanted to have everything potentially bad about the Koch brothers in as many articles as possible? Actually, I'm not going to check the move/merge history, but I believe Koch family was originally at Koch brothers, as the activity of one is frequently attributed to the other, and, together, they own almost all of Koch Industries, and all of Mayer's innuendos were listed on both of the brothers' articles and at Koch Industries. Now that (almost all of) the innuendos are only at "political activities", there may be no need for the intermediate merge.

Seriously, perhaps only the list of family members should be moved to this article, and the rest of the nonsense left to the other appropriate articles. But it would leave political activities of the Koch family as a subarticle of a non-existent article, and it would be absurd to rename that political activities of the sons of Fred C. Koch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the history. If you would like to list the family members, the disambiguation page Koch would be a good place if you object to listing them under Fred. Much like we do with another confusing family, the Cowles. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a counterexample, the Bush family which is in Category:Business families of the United States among a few family categories. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Kennedy family. 203.35.82.171 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Mars family. 203.35.82.171 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I support this merge. The small amount of information on the Koch family page is already repeated in multiple other pages. There's a small section on political activity, which isn't necessary since there's already an entire article on it. The only other section just lists Fred Koch's four sons, which is already done on his page. I understand the usefulness of the Kennedy family and Bush family pages because there is a huge number of notable family members who also have pages and a large amount of content that can be presented regarding the families. The Koch family page is just being used to repeat political activity. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, it looks like Political activities of the Koch family is likely to change to Political activities of the Koch brothers. So that would solve the issue of not having a parent article if we merged this. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I really feel that the current Koch family article doesn't provide anything useful that isn't already included in more appropriate articles. It repeats political activity information that is already listed on the Political activities of the Koch brothers page as well as the individual pages for Fred C. Koch and both brothers. It then lists the family members which are also already listed on Fred Koch's page. I'm going to be bold and go ahead with the redirect to jumpstart the discussion process (if one is needed). If others disagree we can follow WP:BRD. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't support the merge, per counterexamples above (Mars family et. al., which certainly fulfill WP:NOTE and are not content forks) and Arthur Rubin's related comment (the last sentence of his post dated 17:02, 9 July 2012). (Although my personal belief is that the Koch's advocacy of climate change pseudoscience[1] for apparent personal gain is propagandistic evil of the first order, I presume it's obvious that stating the facts about their advocacy -- without speculation about motives or value judgments, but including, where necessary, proper balancing material on climate change per WP:FRINGE -- is entirely within WP's policies.) So, I'm restoring the original article per BRD. It looks like it could be improved along the lines of the Mars family article.

AdventurousSquirrel, your actions on that page are puzzling. You're sophisticated enough to merge articles, yet you don't seem understand what WP:LEAD means:

• you revert an addition to the lead reflecting the article body: diff; ES: "rvt. no need to incluce the same sentence twice in such a small article."
• I un-revert, with rationale in ES, and paraphrase in body to address your concern about repetition: diff; ES: "Restore sentence about contributions to lead, per WP:LEAD -- lead section must summarize article. Tweak text further down to avoid identical wording."
• you re-revert, restating previous ES and ignoring my rationale: diff; ES: "there r only 4 paragraphs in the article. we don't need the same statement in 2 of them."

Nearly all experienced editors know that the lead section is meant to summarize the article's salient points, so repetition isn't an issue. Anyway, now you do know, so I imagine you won't be removing the sentence about conservative advocacy from Koch family's lead unless you can find persuasive support for your preference in WP policy. Thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand those policies, it just seemed to me like common sense that it wasn't necessary to say the same thing twice (about one sentence apart) in such a small article. Without that sentence in the lead it is still clear to any reader that they support conservative and libertarian groups since the only section of the article is on that topic. I won't remove it again; I'm only explaining my reasoning.

I'll also give further reasoning for the merge. The only section of the Koch family article covers political activity of the Koch brothers. Since there is already an entire article on that topic and the topic is repeated on each of their individual pages, I don't see any unique purpose for the Koch family article. The Mars family article also doesn't have much content, but because there are many notable family members, it serves a purpose to link to those pages and show the relationship between them. The Koch family page only has 5 notable members and the relationship and links are already included in the Fred C. Koch article. If we are to keep the Koch family page, what do you suggest we expand it with?

I really would like to discuss this civilly and come up with a consensus after others weigh in. I don't know if it was your intention, but some of the phrases and wording in your comments above come off a bit derogatory towards me. I apologize for reverting before discussing the lead sentence, and, as I said, I'll leave it be. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A lead is, by definition, just going to repeat what the body of the article says, only more briefly. Duplication is therefore unavoidable. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that and that issue is resolved. I still believe the page should be made a redirect and have stated my reasoning above. Does anyone else have good reason to keep this page? What could we expand it with beyond the political activity of the brothers (which there is already an abundance of on Wikipedia) and the relationship between family members (which is a father and sons relationship that is already explained on the Fred C. Koch page)? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been any response or opposition in over a week, so I will go ahead with it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What would you suggest for the current material? I'd rather it not be lost. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• There are several notable figures in this family. I don't understand why the encyclopedia would be better served by redirecting this content to just one of them. The lineage and family connections are significant, notable and important. I would expect similar coverage for a family like the Waltons. The family itself is notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And sure enough, there it is: Walton family. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"several notable figures"? There are only five on the page: Fred Koch and his four sons. What "lineage and family connections" can you put into the article other than that (which is already explained on Fred C. Koch)? The Walton family has 11 notable members that are more spread out, so the page is useful for showing how they are related with the family tree. Everything currently on the Koch family article is already repeated on multiple other articles including Fred C. Koch, the political activities of the Koch brothers, and the individual pages for the brothers. What content other than that could this article be expanded with? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The family is notable and has been covered extensively in reliable independent sources. As you state, there are at least five notable members. Coverage of the family is appropriate and redirecting the content to an article about one of the five family members isn't appropriate (there is also a somewhat notable wife covered in this article which makes six family members). Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that the family is notable, but all of the notable aspects are covered in detail in other articles. The notable family members are Fred Koch and his wife and sons, who are all mentioned and have their pages linked to on his page which is why it is reasonable to redirect 'Koch family' to his page. I don't see the Koch family page being expanded further than it is currently, which is just a repeat of political activity and a listing of their relationship which is already on Fred's page. WP:MERGE suggests that if "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap", they should be merged. Do you have ideas on what the Koch family page could be expanded with so there is enough information to have it stand alone? I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here but I don't think anyone has responded to the points I've brought up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

fundinguniverse

Using on-line plagiarism detectors - almost everything in it has an older source with the esact same language. Wikipedia does not allow use of copyvios. Collect (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Business career

"The process threatened the competitive advantage of established oil companies, and Koch and its customers were sued for patent infringement." Implies without proof that the suits had no merit in law. Violates NPOV

"Although the firm eventually won all of these lawsuits" 1st source is from a book written by a family member and current CEO of Koch Ind. Violates NPOV 2nd source, claim not supported by what's on page and reading the rest of information requires that you buy it for $69. There are records of these suits and their outcomes. Court documents or something that references them are the only reliable sources on a claim like this.

Another issue. I'd love help filling in the missing years after 1932, especially where he was and what he was doing during WWII. Jackhammer111 (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of this section is essentially plagiarized from its source. The sentence structure is the same, with a word added here and there. It needs to be replaced and verified.--24.6.203.151 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)