Talk:Philip Anschutz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fundamentalist Christian[edit]

The way the article is written as a piece of propaganda. The angry tone is remarkable to the point of being slanderous. Hawkseye 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angella101 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?[edit]

Why is the article so stiff and laudatory? This is a guy who Fortune Magazine (yeah, FORTUNE) called "the greediest executive" on the planet! His phony "Media Research Council" were responsible for over half of the complaints the FCC received last year for "indecency" on television. I mean, come on...the guy is a right-wing apocalyptic evangelical who uses his inherited businesses to further his hateful, brainless variety of Christianity. Not to mention his hatred of reason and science which he furthers by funding the completely bogus creationist "Discovery Institute". His fundamentalism has been widely reported on in the press so why is it not at least documented in the article here? Inoculatedcities 16:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above deserve a point-by-point response. The Fortune Magazine article which branded Phil Anschutz at the "Greediest executive" failed to provide the full set of facts for the very basis of this outrageous descriptor. As the founder of Qwest and the person who invested hundreds of million dollar in the company, Anschutz was given a certain amount of "founders stock" when Qwest went public. In 1999 Anschutz sold a portion of his Qwest stock through three sales that amounted to approximately 20% of hia Qwest portfolio. The largest of the three was a $1.6 billion sale to Bell South, to which Fortune writer Mark Gimein took strong exception. What Gimein didn't report was the stock sale was required by Bell South because its officials wanted to decrease Anschutz's ownership in Qwest as a predicate to Bell Sounth entering into joint ventures with Qwest and perhaps even a merger. Anschutz held onto the remaining 80% of his original stock for years ... as its value contined to decline. Anschutz didn't sell the remaining stock until he got off the Qwest board.

The above description of Anschutz's beliefs as "brainless" and "hateful" does a disservice to everyone who takes Wikipedia seriously. (1) The Media Research Council is not "his" - Anschutz simply contributes to the organization. And if "decency" is a negative trait of conservatives ... is "indecency" the currency of liberals? (2) Anschutz did not inherit his businesses. He took the risks necessary and made the investments needed to create success and jobs. (3) The commentator claims that Anschutz has a hatred of reason and science because of he contributed to the Discovery Institute. The facts are, the Anschutz Foundation made a $70,000 grant to the Institute in 2003 for the express purpose of supporting the work of telecom guru George Gilder. The grant had nothing to do with evolution and creationism. In fact, Institute President Bruce Chapman wrote a letter-to-the-editor (Rocky Mountain News) in 2006 citing the fact that Anschutz had not given "one nickle" to their program dealing with evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jem303 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Why is there no mention of his philanthropy to the Denver Art Museum, the CU Medical School and University Hospital, and other benevolent causes ? I understand not liking the guy or his political views, but the world is not so simple that holding critical conservative views negates all other benevolence. His intro notes "businessman and supporter of conservative Christian causes". Why should he be noted for only these two items, and not his philanthropy ?Miles.obediah (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point of criticism is that "Anschutz is a frequent donor (usually through his family foundation) to corporate front groups and think tanks involved in climate denial, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Heritage Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Mercatus Center, America's Future Foundation, the Claremont Institute, DonorsTrust, the National Chamber Foundation and The Philanthropy Foundation.", and that he "supported the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which backs legislation designed to undermine unions and the Discovery Institute which promotes creationism as an acceptable "scientific" view, in public schools." [1] Not a single mention of that, too. The whole wiki page reads like an advertisement for Anschutz. 85.55.201.134 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 7th edition of "Profit Without Honor" (Rosoff and Pontell), Anschutz made 1.5 billion dumping Qwest stock (page 285). Historian932 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following paragraph below reads as if it were written by someone on a crusade against Anschutz and uses questionable sources to do so. I have removed that paragraph as per WP BLP policy and WP's expectation to use only "high-quality sources" for BLPs. WP:BLP. Furthermore, the paragraph uses negatively-loaded, value-laden language (e.g."corporate front groups" and "climate change denial" which should be tempered with a more encyclopedic, NPOV approach that sticks to the facts. WP:SUPER, WP: LABEL. It is also poorly-sourced using (1) an article written by an opinion writer who uses attack language including labeling Anschutz a "right wing extremist" WP:SOURCES and (2) directly copy-and-pasting copy from PR Watch, which violates two WP editing standards: (i) "As a general rule, do not copy text from other sources." and (ii) the use of a questionable source WP:NOTRELIABLE.

He is a frequent donor to think tanks and corporate front groups that promote climate change denial, such as the Discovery Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Mercatus Center, America's Future Foundation, the Claremont Institute, DonorsTrust, the National Chamber Foundation and The Philanthropy Foundation.[59][60].Writethisway (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both Sprint and the fiber optic cable laying company that Phil Anschutz owns (can't recall name of fiber company) should be added. I worked in telecom in 1990's and the industry story about the birth of Sprint was that originally, Southern Pacific Railroad installed fiber-optic cable with a 1 to 1 ratio of the existing copper cable along its railroad right of ways, using an Anschutz-owned installation company. Obviously that resulted in huge excess capacity. There was a map of the fiber optic cable installed and someone (who understood telecom) saw the map and recognized that was the backbone of a long-distance telecom company. Sprint = Southern Pacific Railroad INTernational. That's why the early Sprint commercials were about hearing a pin drop, because they had a fiber optic network (while AT&T and MCI relied heavily on copper). Denver locals (one who worked for Southern Pacific during Anschutz's tenure) have shared that whenever Anschutz sold off companies, he always kept the cable laying company. Amidetx (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://polluterwatch.org/philip-anschutz

"researches"[edit]

Someone removed the quotes I put around the word "researches" in the sentence about the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute certainly funds people of various levels of education and professional experience to write about and promote their patently un-scientific ideas, however, it must be stated that they do not conduct scientific research. They are an activist and proselytizing front for religious anti-evolutionists. To call their propagandizing (which is done under the guise of objectivity and isn't always explicitly religious) "research" is to grossly misunderstand and mislabel them - and to denigrate the word "research". The quotes around the word "researches" have been added back and should not be removed. If you need more information, please see the article about them (Discovery Institute) and it's talk page. Inoculatedcities 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes indicate a particular POV by Wikipedia, so I've removed them. Please do not try to insert your POV into articles in this manner. "Researches" is a perfectly good word that encompasses many scholarly activities, most of which are not scientific. --C S (Talk) 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entire sentence about the Discovery Institute is a POV, and an extremist one at that. For example, it does not "deny evolution", is not Christian (although like just about all organizations, some members are Christians), and has published thousands of pages of scientific research, which the writers of this wiki page could not begin to understand. And, by the way (common myth), it is not "Creationist" either.

For that matter, what is the point in having hypertext links to other Wikipedia pages, if someone is going to reduce an entire organization to a few words of their characterization ? The idea of the hyperlink is to allow people to go to the wikipedia page for Discovery Institute, and make up their own mind (if they are interested), rather than having one person's propaganda be a substitute.

By the way, if you don't think the sentence (and the paragraph about Discovery Institute by the writer in the discussion above) is a slanted POV, then you should look the difference between "anti-Darwinist" and "anti-evolutionist". Discovery Institute is the former and not the latter, which shows the POV.

The difference between 'anti-Darwinist' and 'anti-evolutionist' is, frankly, only visible to anti-Darwinists and anti-evolutionists. And the difference between the Discovery Institute and a fundamentalist Christian organization is that the latter is honest about its goals and the former is not, as one can see if one examines their proposed textbooks for grade-school science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.176.194 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, brother.

BTW, I've decided not to edit the page in order to preserve it an example of why Wikipedia is a great example of the destructive side of technology. There will always be a prevailing slant in Wikipedia towards the viewpoint of uncreative and unproductive people - because they are the only people who could possibly be bothered to "monitor" Wikipedia pages - creative and productive people don't have the time. Once before, I got involved in "changing back" a page that had been changed by an uniformed person whose "facts" came on a daily email from his "side", and I gave up because that uninformed person had far more time to be constantly changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.207.214 (talk) 20:13, July 4, 2007

fundamentalist-themed films ?[edit]

this needs to be specified (with sources) or deleted. What fundamentalism? What themes? Are those themes exclusively fundamentalist? Very vague, OR and POV as it stands now. Northfox 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Boy Promotions[edit]

Anschutz Entertainment recently purchased a significant (but not majority) share of Oscar De La Hoya's "Golden Boy Promotions.

23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I'd like to see a cite on Anschultz's ownerships. I am pretty sure that AEG owns the Staples Center, where the Lakers play, neither Anschultz nor AEG have a stake in the Lakers.98.154.184.143 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

if the foundation for a better life is totally funded by Anshutz, and the page is mostly cites from their site, and it fits right in with all his other funding operations, I think we should merge it into this. 67.204.145.88 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No to merger, they're not selling anything nore is the article The Foundation for a Better Life selling anything. It's a non profit.--IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 16:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy[edit]

Saw Philip Anschutz's profile on facesofphilanthropy.com, noticed his wiki page lacked a philanthropy section, so I added one. Sir. Somerset (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is the source of funds relative to an article about The Foundation for a Better Life? They work in 200 countries around the world promoting generosity, hope, integrity, peace, and the like- shouldn't that be the focus rather than who funds them? Maybe funds deserves mention but it should not be the focus of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbetterlife (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge While you can have a section about the foundation on his page, it is best to leave the articles seperate. 71.52.222.71 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge proposal from the article because there is no support for the merger. 70.109.182.176 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be titled "Political Advocacy," since that is precisely what it is, and calling it "philanthropy" is as absurd as it is insulting. Arcanicus (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell if The Anschutz Family Foundation and The Anschutz Foundation are the same entity or different entities? I had linked to this page from Man Therapy and then found this bit of confusion. Kirby777 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's don't editorialize. Facts will do.[edit]

"The payment was roughly equal to his profit from the practice of IPO "spinning"." C'mon. The contrast is interesting, and entertaining. But let's not go there. GcT (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, calling that amendment in Colorado "notorious" - a word which implies it is sinister and evil. Proper for an encyclopedic entry?!?!192.127.94.7 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some of the chokecherry (wyoming wind energy project) and other info is three years out of date, discussing things expected to happen in 2013 or 2011. - robbin stewart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.140.164 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate lead[edit]

Added template for a better lead that summarizes the key facts in a neutral fashion. Not enough context and history in the current version. Maxwell Gyllen (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Philip Anschutz. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly-sourced lede[edit]

The lede for this BLP is poorly-sourced. For example, "Anschutz has been described as a Christian conservative, who has donated to openly antigay, anti-transgender, and anti-abortion causes" is asserted without references. When dealing with a BLP, precision is required, which means, we, as editors, must be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" Writethisway (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writethisway, the lead should summarise the rest of the article, and should not itself contain any citations. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Edwardx (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." MOS:LEADCITE Writethisway (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a topic is touched upon later in the article, doesn't mean it is noteworthy enough to include in the lede. The lede should establish notability which is achieved through a rigorous evaluation of multiple, high-quality sources supporting that notability. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.WP:BLPR. The sentence in the lede's first paragraph: "Anschutz has been described as a Christian conservative, who has donated to openly antigay, anti-transgender, and anti-abortion causes." although true, seems to give undue weight to the topic in the lede, and should also use more reliable sources than just the one papermag.com piece cited later in the article where the same statement is found.Writethisway (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political and Religious activisim[edit]

The following sentence violates WP style guidelines pertaining to "contentious labels" (e.g. pseudo-) WP:LABEL "Anschutz funds groups that advocate pseudoscientific concepts and viewpoints."Writethisway (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "political and social activism" section needs a major update as much of the information in it is 10 or more years old. There is also some WP:OR in it, in this sentence, "He is also a major donor to the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, conservative think tanks.[1][2][3] I clicked through on one of those tax returns (from 12 years ago) and had to spend a lot of time even finding the amounts contributed to the three named organizations and to one of them, the donation size was $25,000 that year. That doesn't seem major. However, what is or isn't considered a major or notable contribution should be determined by WP:RS not by linking to tax returns. Novellasyes (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this comment. I recommend the sentence specify the Foundation makes the grants, not Anschutz himself. Wording should be 'the Anschutz Foundation makes grants to conservative think tanks, including [show names]'. Delete "major" unless RS can support it. DonFB (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made that change. Also, thanks for making the conceptual clarification between what Anschutz gives as an individual (like to political parties and candidates) versus what is given through his foundation. Great distinction. Deserves two separate paragraphs and I will work on that also. Novellasyes (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ United States. Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. “Form 990-PF, the Anschutz Foundation,” Department of the Treasury, Dec. 2010.
  2. ^ United States. Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. “Form 990-PF, the Anschutz Foundation,” Department of the Treasury, Dec. 2011.
  3. ^ United States. Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. “Form 990-PF, the Anschutz Foundation,” Department of the Treasury, Dec. 2012.

art collector[edit]

See the Summer 2005 ARTnews magazine, ARTnews (archive.org), cited from Internet archive server, List The world's top 200 collectors. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_Anschutz&oldid=1204884229"