Talk:Koch Industries/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

contributions to democrats

In reply to Arthur Rubin's complaint that not enough was said in the political activity section about contributions by Koch to Democratic party candidates, and his comment that
The Sunlight Foundation reports significant contributions to Democrats; in fact, the top Representative (by contributions) was a Democrat.
I've added a paragraph on the subject (thank you Hcobb ) from the Sunlight Foundation page on Koch Industries (I've copied it below). Hopefully now we can remove those tags ...

... right Mr Rubin!

According to the Sunlight Foundation,

The majority of the money contributed by Koch Industries has gone to Republicans. A select few Democrats have also been recipients. These include the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus including Reps. Mike Ross, Jim Matheson, and Dan Boren. Others are those who support Koch priorities like defeating proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, the top recipient of Koch contributions was not a dem. See for yourself. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any grasp at all regarding NPOV? Go push your POV somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

rvt

my edit was reverted here by collect with the edit note saying "it is NOT a news organization blog - read WP:RS to see why it is not usable"

In fact the Wikipedia:RS says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

I've reverted the edit back.

I would encourage anyone who hasn't seen the The Sunlight Foundation site to check it out. The site is beautifully designed with mouse-over giving the politician's name, party and money contributed via a map of the US. Sunlight is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect has made a 3RR warning on my talk page and I've self-rvted. plan to do a RfC Friday Monday. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change in article

(pretty much a repeat of posts by me above) I proposed that the following sentences in italics below be added:

According to the Sunlight Foundation,

The majority of the money contributed by Koch Industries has gone to Republicans. A select few Democrats have also been recipients. These include the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus including Reps. Mike Ross, Jim Matheson, and Dan Boren. Others are those who support Koch priorities like defeating proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

and

The Center also reports Koch Industries contributed $1.35 million to winning congressional campaigns in the 2010 cycle.
(both edits were added by me here and here before being deleted.)

and these tags removed

-BoogaLouie (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues

Is sunlightfoundation.com/blog/ WP:RS or not?
Is talking about Mercatus Center and the Kochs, offtopic?

Edits

paragraph

I attempted to add the paragraph about sunlight foundation in response to complaints by Arthur Rubin that there was no mention of Koch industries contributions to democrats in the article ("The Sunlight Foundation reports significant contributions to Democrats; in fact, the top Representative (by contributions) was a Democrat." (that last bit about top Representative appears to be untrue)) I posted the following paragraph:

According to the Sunlight Foundation,

The majority of the money contributed by Koch Industries has gone to Republicans. A select few Democrats have also been recipients. These include the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus including Reps. Mike Ross, Jim Matheson, and Dan Boren. Others are those who support Koch priorities like defeating proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

(The other paragraph also cites the sunlight foundation.)

While the posts are technically from a blog (sunlightfoundation.com/blog/), sunlight foundation is a reputable non-profit, nonpartisan organization, and the blog the antithesis of homemade opinion blog. and so qualifies for Wikipedia:RS under the policy: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

tags

Many of the tags are "{{off topic sentence}}" and appear in this paragraph:

According to a critic of the Mercatus Center and the Kochs, the political activity by some of the Koch-supported foundations -- such as Mercatus Center -- helps the company financially. According to Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in environmental issues, “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Mercatus has constantly hammered" on the EPA. The founder of the Mercatus Center, Richard H. Fink, also heads Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington DC. According to a study by Media Matters for America, Koch Industries (and other Koch brothers-owned companies) "have benefited from nearly a $100 million in government contracts since 2000."

Why are the statements off topic? according to wikieditor Arthur Rubin Many of the comments refer to political activities of the Kochs and the Koch foundations, which should not be in this article. but only in Political activities of the Koch family. However the source("mayer" http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all) specifically talks about the "Koch" and "the company":
Mercatus Center does not actively promote the company’s private interests. But Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas, who specializes in environmental issues, told me that “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the E.P.A., and Mercatus has constantly hammered on the agency.”
I've also added another source talking about Koch Industries and not Koch brothers
ref>"Mercatus, the staunchly anti-regulatory center funded largely by Koch Industries Inc." I Am OMB and I Write the Rules By Al Kamen washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2006]</ref> --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

comments

Talking about the Mercatus Center and the Kochs is off-topic unless

1. The source specifically names Koch Industries in a significant manner [I was going to say the source is specifically about Koch Industries, but that is probably too strong], and
2. The information also appears in Political activities of the Koch family.

The Sunlight foundation link previous supplied did have a Democrat as the highest Representative receiving Koch Industry funds (whatever they mean by "Koch Industry funds"), but it may have been 2007-2008.

I lean toward the sunlight foundation "blog" being a reliable source, except that it may not meet the stricter WP:BLPSPS. (The Kochs, and the recipients of the funds, are presumably living.)

The Washington Post source is a column; further research would be needed to determine whether it's under the full editorial control of the paper, or whether it's just the columnist's opinion, which would also fall afoul of WP:BLPSPS if we use it to "name names".

I think it's generally an improvement, provided

1. Mayer's statement that Koch Industries funds Republicans is balanced,
2. I still think the sentence I tagged above is off-topic gossip; it's Mayer (at least, I think it's Mayer) quoting an unnamed critic for a non-specific statement.
3. We don't "name names" (including the Kochs; companies and foundations are OK) unless the source clearly meets WP:BLP.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rubin, one thing you have consistently done in your posts on this page is fail to provide EVIDENCE of your assertions.

1. WHO is "the Democrat" receiving more Koch Industry funds than any other???? Where is you link to where this was said????--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
2. If the information should "also appears in Political activities of the Koch family," is the solution to delete the information or to put it in the Political activities of the Koch family?
3. it's Mayer (at least, I think it's Mayer) quoting an unnamed critic for a non-specific statement.

Here is what I said above earlier in reply to your complaint:

The quote is by an unnamed critic, but it is followed by another

An environmental lawyer who has clashed with the Mercatus Center called it “a means of laundering economic aims.” The lawyer explained the strategy: “You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank,” which “hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders.”(source)

and then followed by an example:

In 1997, for instance, the E.P.A. moved to reduce surface ozone, a form of pollution caused, in part, by emissions from oil refineries. Susan Dudley, an economist who became a top official at the Mercatus Center, criticized the proposed rule. The E.P.A., she argued, had not taken into account that smog-free skies would result in more cases of skin cancer. She projected that if pollution were controlled it would cause up to eleven thousand additional cases of skin cancer each year.

In 1999, the District of Columbia Circuit Court took up Dudley’s smog argument. Evaluating the E.P.A. rule, the court found that the E.P.A. had “explicitly disregarded” the “possible health benefits of ozone.” In another part of the opinion, the court ruled, 2-1, that the E.P.A. had overstepped its authority in calibrating standards for ozone emissions. As the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank, revealed, the judges in the majority had previously attended legal junkets, on a Montana ranch, that were arranged by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment—a group funded by Koch family foundations. The judges have claimed that the ruling was unaffected by their attendance. (source)

--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: At the proper noticeboard - WP:RS/N no one defended Sunlight Foundation as a reliable source. So that is already off the table. Secondly, Mayer is used so much in the article already that we run the real risk of copyvio. No BLP (and this article is absolutely under WP:BLP) should rely that heavily on a single contested article per WP:UNDUE. Also, opensecrets.org is considered a "primary source" at the same noticeboard, and the claim that Koch Industries made the donations was roundly condemned there as not representing what the source says in any way. Misuse of a source is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Cheers, but these "proposed edits" are flagrantly wrong and contrary to policy and guidelines, and noted as such on the proper noticeboards as well. Collect (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

the discussion (with my reply) at the noticeboard is here--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I will withdraw my proposal for a quote from Sunlight Foundation, but I think you may be drawing a little too much from that noticeboard discussion, Collect. BTW, I would have been nice if you r notified this talk page of your question on the noticeboard so that others could participate. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Partisan censorship?

Does User:Arzel removing references to WP:NEWSORG which hiding under the cover of NPOV count as censorship?140.247.79.223 (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No. And you likely should apprise yorself of some major Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How does WP:BLP apply to Koch Industries? Are you suggesting that the Guardian is not a reliable source? And, how does WP:V apply? Are you saying that Guardian is not a news organization? Are you saying that it is ok if some person, call him notArzel, went around deleting references to Fox news and claiming NPOV? Would you then say if realArzel complained that realArzel needs to "apprise himself of some major Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V"? Cheers.140.247.79.223 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, a great deal of the article is abut two living brothers. Material relating to living people is covered by WP:BLP no matter where it is on Wikipedia. Some sources given here in the past are not reliable sources ber WP:RS etc. so that cavil fails. If you have any serious questions to pose, I suggest you pose them at WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I missed, at first, one bit of the WP:BLPSOURCES guidelines -- to inline citation requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.79.223 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg.com potential resources

From Talk:Political activities of the Koch family ...

• http://topics.bloomberg.com/koch-industries/
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/koch-iran-link-causes-candidate-to-send-contributions-to-charity.html by Kristin Jensen, October 19, 2011
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html by Asjylyn Loder and David Evans - Oct 3, 2011 1:28 PM ET Bloomberg Markets Magazine, excerpt ...

  Such a probe would fall under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 1977 law that makes it illegal for companies and their subsidiaries to pay bribes to government officials and employees of state-owned companies. Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney says the agency won’t confirm or deny the existence of any investigation. While Koch-Glitsch was conducting its internal probe of illicit payments for contracts, the U.S. government was investigating Koch’s European unit on another front: sales to Iran.

• http://www.bloomberg.com/video/76441616/ video Oct. 3 Koch Industries Inc. is a global industrial company run by brothers Charles and David Koch. Bloomberg Markets magazine's November issue examines some of the company's questionable practices and political lobbying (Peter Cook reports).

99.181.136.158 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the articles also include such quotes as:

Koch Industries may not have violated the law if no U.S. people or company divisions facilitated trades with Iran, says Avi Jorisch, a Treasury Department policy adviser from 2005 to 2008. That’s impossible to determine without a complete investigation, Jorisch says. and the like.

If we run with the accusations, we must equally run with the materiak in the cites which contradict the accusations. I suspect the net would be a rather severe weaking of the weight some wish to attach to the accusatin ab initio. Collect (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Free Market Solutions

Exactly what is the problem with this information? A few editors seem to not like it, but have yet to say why here. Gamaliel seems to think it needs to be discussed here and removes it because there is no discussion. Arzel (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the issue is here, but I do see that there has been a lot of reverting on this article. I'd encourage all of the active editors to try to stop the unproductive cycle of reverting and to seek consensus on the talk page instead.   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I rather suggest articles from the New York Times are sufficiently reliable for use in this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight of Environmental and safety record information

The amount of information related to the companies environmental and safety record is unnecessary and undue. There is no reason for that section to take up a fourth of the article. We frown upon editors with clear bias who add that bias to pages they edit, so why do we use a clearly biased source (the Bloomberg article) as a reference multiple times. Just like in the Bloomberg article, there is no context or sense of proportion with the section.

In a response to the Bloomberg article, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post says “In one sense, if in months and months of investigation, Bloomberg came up with less than a dozen cases, none of which is a current issue, Koch may be better run than most American conglomerates. It’s not unusual for multibillion dollar companies to have hundreds of litigation matters each year.”

John Hinderacker from Powerline confirms this and Bloomberg’s bias as well, saying “Bloomberg’s article offers a pastiche of five or six incidents which took place over a period of decades, are completely unrelated, and were selected by Bloomberg simply because they can be used to put Koch in a bad light.”

An article in the Atlantic also confirms Bloomberg’s bias and failure to bring up anything significant. It also provides some context, showing several fines from other comparable companies that can be easily found with a Google search and do not require a team of 14 Bloomberg reporters six months to dig up.

The Bloomberg article is obviously biased and written to put Koch Industries in a bad light for political reasons. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is to write articles from a neutral point of view. The Environmental & safety record section in this page relies heavily on the Bloomberg article and is undue and devoid of context or proportion. The section, just as the Bloomberg article, only serves the purpose of putting the company in a highly negative light. The information in the KI article taken from the Bloomberg source should be removed; or at the very least, quotes from the sources I have mentioned here, and possibly others, should be added to give context and proportion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some mention should be made of the Atlantic reaction to the Bloomberg article. (Powerline is a right wing blog and Jennifer Rubin is a right-wing commentator so they don't qualify as WP:RS) but getting rid of mention of Bloomberg article is going to far. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Have added a sentence on the Atlantic criticism --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a RS. To claim that Rubin is conservative somehow makes the source unreliable is hysterical considering that Bloomberg is just as biased. Arzel (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's because Rubin is an op/ed columnist not a straight up journalist. Actually, I guess [Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion wikipe regulations] allow her comment to be mentioned if qualified to say according to her not according to Washington Post. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that sentence; it is well-written and presents the source well. I still believe that the problem of undue weight exists in the article. The environmental and safety record and political activities information takes up 3/4ths of the entire article, which makes it seem that the article’s main purpose is to make the company look bad. The majority of the article should be neutral information about what the company is and does. It isn’t necessary to include every single problem or mistake the company has made throughout its entire history; this is not done with other articles on companies. Those sections need to be reduced and the rest of the page needs to be expanded. I plan to work on the expansion, but I know that removal of material needs consensus so I hope that there can be more discussion and input from multiple editors on the subject. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you been paying attention to the news for the past two years. Koch=Devil ergo Koch Industries must also = the devil and because they are sooo bad all that they do which can be construed as bad must be reported here. In other words, good luck balancing out this article. Arzel (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the page as I mentioned I would in order for it to provide more information about the companies history and operations. I expanded the subsections of each subsidiary and moved info on awards or fines that were specific to a subsidiary into the subsection for it. As I've heard many other editors explain, it is best to have criticism/controversy and praise spread out in appropriate sections rather than put into one section because those kinds of sections generally become coat racks. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-praise

The article currently says:

According to its website, Koch Industries and its subsidiaries received 289 stewardship awards over the two years ending January 2011.

Well, according to my web site, I'm the most powerful man in the universe. Of course, nobody would just take my word for it, right? So why do we repeat Koch PR without any attempt to source it neutrally? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the number is "unduly self-serving"? That would be a matter for WP:CONSENSUS to decide - and it has already done so in the past. For your own site to say you are "the most powerful man in the universe" would also be up to consensus as well -- and I fear that it would, indeed, be found to be "unduly self serving." Collect (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that we have no reason to believe that it's true. None. We should be skeptical of bragging, rather than repeating it uncritically.

It comes down to reliable sourcing, not consensus. Obviously, Koch Industries is not a reliable source about the reputation of Koch Industries. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to ask again: Is there any reliable source for that supports their claim or do we have to remove it due to lack of reliable sources? I'll give interested editors some time to answer, but in the absence of reliable sources, I'm going to wind up removing the claim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for what Koch Industries claims about themselves (and that's all that the article currently says) - however, I'd still say that such a claim probably doesn't belong in the article. I did a quick search of a bunch of randomly chosen large companies (Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, ExxonMobil) and none of them have awards sections in their articles even though Google brings up as many results as you might imagine. (The IBM article mentions a few, but they're significant national-level awards, such as the National Medal of Technology and Innovation). In fact, I think the rest of the section should go as well for the same reason. It's been tagged for more than a year, and no improvements have been made. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't disagree. Please let me know if you'd like to make the cut or would prefer that I do it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what is a "stewardship award"? Perhaps it doesn't belong here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather think it is being a "steward" of the Earth -- that is - a general term for "Green awards". The context certainly implies that. Collect (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The phrase you're looking for is "environmental stewardship". But the problem remains: it's been unreliably sourced for a couple of months now. If we can't source it, it has to go. Remember, verifiability, not truth. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(To 125's question above) Sure, I don't mind making the edit. I'll wait a bit first though, to see if anyone has a good response for why the section should stay. To be clear, I would also remove the statement about Koch Nitrogen based on the same reasoning (sub-national, non-notable). Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Call me "Still". I'm fine with waiting. Give them their chance. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-off-topic - that's the point. If there exists a good response, then I want to know what it is (so that the encyclopedia will end up better off), and a short wait may get someone to produce it. :-) It's the same as doing science - it's more important to arrive at the right answer (if your answer isn't the right one) even if you have to change your opinion to do so. Link. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. When I removed this section, I was told that I was being hasty, even though it had been tagged for months. Rather than edit-war, I'm content to sit here and wait for someone to provide a reliable source.

If they can, great, I've improved the article. If they can't, fine, I can go ahead and remove that section and nobody can complain that I'm being hasty. It's a no-lose situation, so long as I don't define winning in an egotistical way. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I hadn't checked the page history, so I didn't know about the edit war. I suppose I should be more definite then: if nobody makes a significant objection (with reasoning, of course) in the next ~3 days, I will remove the four statements which are not at the national level or higher. The final version would be as follows:

Environmental and safety record

From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries was assessed "more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments." Another source points out that Koch has had only "eight instances of alleged misconduct ... over the span of 63 years" despite being a giant multinational, and that this compares favorably to the fines, penalties and judgments accrued by the similarly large General Electric corporation.

Pollution and resource fines

In May 2001, Koch Industries paid $25 million to the federal government to settle a federal lawsuit that found the company had improperly taken more oil than it had paid for from federal and Indian land.

In 2010, Koch Industries was ranked 10th on the list of top US corporate air polluters, the "Toxic 100 Air Polluters", by the Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst. --Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

definately No to the last line. As one of the largest companies in the world this kind of statement is similar to the "one of the worlds largest nitrogen fertilizer supplier". The study does not take into consideration the size of the opperations, only the result, if it was adjusted for size of the company it would be far more useful. Ask yourself which is worse, a small company that pollutes a lot with respect to the size of the opperation, or a large company that pollutes a little over hundreds or thousands of sites? Arzel (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked the {{cite press release}} for the last sentence. Was the implication that the material is not reliable intentional or unintentional? In any case, the implication is there, and should either be explained, removed, or the sentence removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we find any other company articles which go to this extent in saying a company has been fined? I fear the material about the fines was entirely due to political considerations, and not to Koch being unuaually evil. For example, why not enumerate the companies with higher fines? Or better yet - why not list fines by value of company? A company worth only $1 billion with fines of $100 million is clearly less "evil" than one worth $100 billion with fines of $100 million, I would dare to say. Remove it all as being intrinsically POV if we keep the other companies unlisted, and especially if their articles do not have a corresponding claim ascribed to the same cite. Collect (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So most people want to remove even more? I suppose that's fine with me. A comment, though: I looked up the top 10 companies on that list, and a) most of them have at least some mention of fines and/or pollution in the articles, and b) Koch is one of the smaller companies on that list, at least measured by number of employees (which is the first measure of size that I thought of), so it's not clear that they would do better on a different list if one existed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

To Still - I said I would give three days, and it's been two. Nobody had objected (you can see the discussion above is based on removing more material, not less), so I don't see why you couldn't wait another day. Also, you didn't remove the Koch Nitrogen statement as I said I would, but placed it at the end of the preceding paragraph instead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What counts as three days depends on what time zone you're in. Regardless, there was no good reason for reverting it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was three days since my first statement (diff), but the relevant one (diff) was not until 47 hours before your edit. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and when I revert in 24 hours, is anything going to be different? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How about Arc does that himself. ViriiK (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Help me out here: How would it be different if Arc did it as opposed to if I did it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Because a) it's considered an extension of good faith to let others make edits that you are in favor of, b) people on these articles don't really trust you right now (whether or not it's justified, it's a statement of fact), and c) as I said above, you didn't actually make the same edit. Also, because I don't want to join anything even remotely resembling an edit war, if you edit again and are reverted again I will not subsequently make the edit myself. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, (b) goes against WP:AGF and the basic spirit of collegial editing. Reverting something based on the editor who made the change instead of the content is 'bad', in a word, despicable. ViriiK should be ashamed of himself for his actions.

As for (c), the only difference is that I kept a sentence that was already there. If that sentence was really a problem, then ViriiK could have removed just that sentence. As it was, he left it in when he reverted the changes that we all agreed upon. Frankly, this looks like (b) all over again.

Moving back to (a), I never had any objection to you making the change. I just object to the idea that you should be allowed to while I'm not. That's simply personal bias, and we should be better than that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I really suggest you strikethrough (or remove) some of those comments, especially "Reverting...actions." (Regardless of whether you think they're justified.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to set a good example regarding the assumption of good faith, I have done so. I would hate to be the black pot by being needlessly harsh. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Environmental and safety record (new section)

Okay, so I'm going to very carefully make the edit that I had previously proposed, and which has not been opposed for ~3 days from the time I said I would make the edit. (I assume that ViriiK's reversion of Still was on principle and not an objection.)

My reasoning is above, although there's a lot of other discussion there, so the relevant diffs are 1 2 3 4. Summary: I have removed the four statements in the "Environmental and Safety Record" section that are at the sub-national level, to get the version that I proposed in the third diff. Of course, I invite anyone to discuss if they would like.

A suggestion was made above that the Amherst study also be removed. I've left it in for now, as it wasn't part of my original proposal; my impression (as I said in the fourth diff) is that it could reasonably be retained, although of course I am open to being convinced. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others that the Amherst study should be removed. The study states, to get their rankings they “rate corporate performance in terms of (1) the total amount and toxicity of chemical releases; (2) the resulting pollution burdens, taking into account the number of people impacted; and (3) the extent to which these burdens fall disproportionately on low-income communities and people of color.” [1]

So the size of the companies, # of facilities, is not taken into account (I think # of facilities is a more practical measure of size than # of employees when looking at pollution rankings). Relative to the size, KI has done very well to minimize pollution. Look at the links to the data on the companies from the study. The top five ranked polluters on this list, Bayer, Exxon, Sunoco, E.I. du Pont, and ArcelorMittal have only 14, 52, 16, 59, and 21 facilities respectively. KI has 128 facilities. With so many you would expect to see a higher pollution score, but they have done well to minimize pollution and its effects, leading to a much lesser ranking than companies that are a fraction of their size.

We can’t add this context into the article because it would be called original research. The awards that were in the section helped to add context because they showed that KI was doing well to minimize pollution. Without the context, the study should be removed. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I saw that Arc mentioned "it's not clear that they would do better on a different list if one existed." I found this Pollution Ranking of the top 100 facilities ranked by "total environmental releases", and none of the KI facilities show up on the list. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Layoff notices if Obama elected

Well, apparently, I was wrong. The statement seems to be reported by a real news source. However, it's not just Koch; the real article at Yahoo! News lists 2 other companies. I'm not sure this is notable. Koch did something similar in 2010, and there are probably dozens of large companies that we can locate who did something like that in 2008. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused how this "layoff" bit is still on the page:

Koch Industries has also encouraged employees to vote for conservative candidates. In These Times Magazine reported that a political flyer sent to 45,000 employees of Koch Industries paper subsidiary Georgia-Pacific, urged the workers to vote for a list of Koch-endorsed candidates, including Mitt Romney. The voting information asserted:

If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.[58]

Koch Industries replied that

“As we regularly point out, Koch companies and Koch PAC support candidates based on their support for market-based policies and economic freedom, which benefits society as a whole. Our support is not based on party affiliation, and we support both Republicans and Democrats who support market-based policies and solutions.”[59]

Papa John's, Walmart, Denny's, Red Lobster, and Olive Garden (to name a few) did the same thing. Also, the source is In These Times... AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to Dems and GOP

It took Collect four minutes to delete this factoid from the article.

In the 2012 election Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has supported both Democrats and Republicans, though not in equal amounts. In the House of Representatives, for example, Democratic candidates have received $23,500 from Koch PAC while Republican candidates have been given $1.162 million.

... Alleging "this sort of editorialising does not benefit Wikipedia readers" in the edit summary.
I might point out the source of this information was the conservative business magazine/website Forbes, and the very tame statement of fact (In the 2012 election Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has supported both Democrats and Republicans, though not in equal amounts) was a toned down paraphrasing of this from the Forbes article:

Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has indeed supported Democrats this election, but only to the tune of $23,500, backing four Democrats in Congressional races (for the record: $10,000 to Georgia’s John Barrow, $2,000 to Oklahoma’s Dan Boren, $5,500 to Minnesota’s Collin Peterson and $6,000 to Arkansas’ Mike Ross).

By contrast, Koch PAC has spent $1.162 million on Republican candidates for the House, plus another $152,000 on GOP Senate hopefuls. FEC disclosures show that the Koch Industries group donated $25,000 to the the official Romney/Ryan fundraising committee in August, as well as $30,000 each to the National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and Republican National Committee.

...in response to the Koch industries statement:

"Our support is not based on party affiliation, and we support both Republicans and Democrats who support market-based policies and solutions". --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably a mistake. I put the informative text back.Sally Season (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a mistake and founded on Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

... So anyway I added the source of the example to satisfy Collect's complaint:("the wording "for example" is a clear sign that an editorial comment is going to be made in Wikipedia's voice. We do not do this.") --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this article need a criticism section?

Why is there not a section devoted to criticism and/or controversy of Koch Industries like you see with most other highly controversial entities throughout Wikipedia?

For starters, observe this list of well-sourced controversies spawned via Koch Industries here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#2011_Bloomberg_Markets_Expos.C3.A9

1 2011 Bloomberg Markets Exposé

1.1 Bribery of Foreign Officials

1.2 Firing of Compliance Officer

1.3 Trading with Iran

1.4 Falsifying Benzene Emissions

1.5 Stealing Oil on Indian Reservations

1.6 Deadly Butane Explosion

1.7 The 'Koch Method'

2 Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

3 Business interests (Includes them being one of the United States' top 10 air polluters)

4 Koch Brothers' Fortune vs. Koch Industries' Employment

5 Affiliations and Funding of Interest Groups

5.1 Koch Family Foundations

5.2 Cato Institute

5.3 Americans for Prosperity

5.4 Tea Party Movement and Funding

6 Direct Lobbying and Campaign Contributions

6.1 Political Contributions

6.2 Lobbying

7 Koch Industries' Political Activities

7.1 Voting Advice to Employees

7.2 Koch strategy retreat, 2011

7.2.1 Attendees

7.2.1.1 June 2010 participants

7.2.1.2 Earlier guests included politicians and Supreme Court justices (Scalia & Thomas)

7.3 Linked to union-busting efforts

7.3.1 In Wisconsin and nationally, 2011

7.4 Climate denial and delay

7.4.1 Fighting greenhouse gas regulations

7.4.1.1 Regional Climate Change Accords

7.4.1.1.1 New Hampshire

7.4.1.2 EPA, 2011

7.4.1.3 California, 2010

7.4.1.3.1 Koch subsidiary donates $1 million to stop Calif. GHG law

7.4.2 Other Koch funding

7.4.2.1 Koch-funded organizations

7.4.2.2 Organizations' messaging on "ClimateGate"

7.5 Tar Sands, 2011

7.6 Actions during and before the GW Bush administration

7.6.1 Lobbying

7.6.2 Pollution - Spills, fines and indictments

7.6.2.1 Off the hook after GWBush became president

7.6.2.1.1 Koch representation in Bush's cabinet

So, let's stop the whitewashing, add a criticism/controversy section and make this a respectable, encyclopedic article worthy of Wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The article has plenty of criticism in it. Making any Wikipedia article into a hit piece, however, is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Stating facts about well-known controversies doesn't make an article a "hit piece". For example, there's no mention whatsoever of the controversial trading with Iran? That's a blaring omission in itself and further evidence of whitewashing. We all need to go forward with making an informative article with a NPOV and NOT a public relations piece for Koch Industries. If you fight adding a NPOV to this article you will be against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, you are not the arbiter of whether or not "the article has plenty of criticism"; That is up to consensus as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cowicide (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Currently the article has 49 lines which are critical - or about half of the entire article. What percentage of the article do you feel should be devoted to critical commentary? Collect (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't "critical commentary"... sorry, your newspeak doesn't work on me. It's adding notable, critical FACTS that are missing from this article. I'm not interested in adding opinion, just FACTS. Also, I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Article facts don't limit themselves on a percentage basis, it's about notability and accuracy. Otherwise, I suggest you go fix this article about Charlie Manson that has a high percentage of critical FACTS and see how far you get attempting to bend reality there. Do you feel a need to continue whitewashing this article? You should read this. And, with that, we should begin fixing this article and be transparent about it, ok? Cowicide (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's clear to me that there are a number of critical "facts" already in the article which aren't factual. Do you feel a need to continue blackwashing the article? As for your specifics:

• 1.1, 1.2, and 1.6 are covered in the article.
• 5, 6, and most of 7 would be appropriate in the "Political ..." article, and I seem to remember them being covered (beyond the point of verifiable facts). Enough of them are covered here to suggest that any further addition would be undue weight. Much of what you think should be in 7.4.2.1 is demonstrably false, even if stated in sourcewatch. Much of 7.6.2 is still here; I suspect more is here than should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If I was "blackwashing" the article as you suggest, then where are my edits on the article that do this? Show me or retract your false accusation, please. On the other hand, all one has to do is read through this Talk page and its archive to see evidence of whitewashing the article against truthful, well-sourced, critical information that Koch Industries obviously campaigns to neuter here. It's ridiculous that companies like Microsoft on Wikipedia have entire articles devoted to criticism, but strangely enough there's not even a comprehensive section here for such a notably controversial corporation. Instead there's strained, sporadic criticisms missing a large amount of factual content that's out there. It's time to stop this blatant whitewashing that's making this a weak article.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that wikipedia shouldn't duplicate the partisan sourcewatch wiki (operated by the Center for Media and Democracy which is obviously a progressive organization) word for word. And, I also agree that everything in that list isn't notable, but what I hope is that editors who respect NPOV will look through that list and add what is notable and factual. That's why I added that info to the Talk page and not into the article itself. Cowicide (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that you had been blackwashing the article. I should have said "continue the blackwashing of the article", implying that there had been blackwashing, and you wanted to continue or expand it. And I agree that the blackwashing of the article can easily be seen by looking at the talk page and archives. As for sourcewatch, consensus is that only the reporting on contributions, extracted from official documents, is reliable. (Although, in some cases, what is said there is covered by reliable sources. In a few cases, even what is covered by reliable sources, such as 7.4.2.1, is clearly, objectively, false.) Most of point 6 (reliable), and more than is truthful from 7, is in the associated political activities of the Koch brothers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Blackwashing attempts of the article have been thwarted up to this point and I commend you and others for helping against that. While we must all be diligent to protect the article from blackwashing from biased parties whose only goal is to put the company in a bad light (as apposed to telling the notable truth); We must also be diligent to protect the article from whitewashing from biased parties whose goal is to put the company in a good light (as apposed to telling the notable truth).

Hopefully you will work with me to achieve these goals. As you know, my goal is to fix an article that has been whitewashed and I know that you are a Libertarian who wants to protect the company from a blackwash. I appreciate that you are upfront about being a Libertarian on your User Page so we have some transparency. All one has to do is look at my Talk page to see my positions and what I'm sure some will perceive as my foibles. You seem like a reasonable person, so hopefully together we can fix this whitewashing that has harmed the quality of this article while at the same time avoiding unsourced criticisms that will harm this article in the other direction.

One of the reasons this article's quality suffers is its glaring lack of a distinctive criticisms section. I was shocked when I came to this article and couldn't find one. Koch Industries is an unarguably controversial company and doesn't have a specific controversy section (or page) as it should (per wikipedia guidelines) when so many other companies on Wikipedia do. Case and point: Microsoft , Walmart , Target , Whole Foods and as you should know as a seasoned editor that list goes on and on. How do you explain this glaring omission of such a controversial company on Wikipedia? It's been whitewashed. Whether it's been from good intentions or not, it needs to be fixed.

When you say "7.4.2.1, is clearly, objectively, false.", what is specifically false in that section? Please provide your reliable sources and proof to back up your statement. I also see where you deleted my edit without discussing it with me first. As per wikipedia guidelines, I have reverted it back until we discuss your actions and reach consensus. My edit was properly sourced, notable and put into a proper section (Environmental and safety record). What better place to put their environmental record than within the environmental record section? Then again, if there was a proper criticism section (or page) that wasn't whitewashed off this article, I could have placed it there as well. Cowicide (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONTROVERSY suggests that there shouldn't be a criticism section, but I see it's observed more in the breach than as a guideline.

As for "objectively false", sourcewatch, among others, has assumed that if Koch founded and funded A, and B has spun-off from A, then Koch "founded" and "funded" B. This is absolutely wrong, in the case of FreedomWorks, for example. If you (and sourcewatch) ignore spinoffs, and determine which organizations the Kochs were funding while they were active, then the associations may be listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I also already addressed the wikipedia guidelines above where it makes it clear that organizations and corporations that are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism, can and should have a criticism section or page. Also this: "... In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material. ... ". Are you trying to deny this reality for Koch Industries? Cowicide (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am Amadscientist a volunteer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and the Wikipedia:Teahouse. There is actually a policy (not a gudeline or an essay) in regards to sections containing praise or criticism. WP:WEIGHT states:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Because this article also deals with the Koch brothers as a BLP (Biography of living persons) we have some very strict policies in regards to both praise and critcism that go even farther:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I urge editors to work together to edit this article in a disinterested manner and NOT add controversy, critcism or praise sections as they are not neutral. However, you cannot keep all critcism off this article (any more than keeping off legitimate positive content) as that is also a major neutrality issue. All content must begin with a reliable source and be accurate and agreed upon by all editors. If there is legitimate content someone feels is being kept out for reasons other than our guidelines, policies and consensus, please request comment from a larger pool of contributers for a broader consensus. Remember that a local consensus can NEVER override the broader general community. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As an addendum to what you wrote, special sections (and sub-articles) can sometimes be justifiable per WP:SUMMARY and WP:CORG, if a subject's controversies are voluminous and independently notable.   — C M B J   12:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding certain edits

Aurther, I'm going to go ahead and ask for some help with this from others. Please do NOT delete entire sections of my edits again without discussion or I will consider it whitewashing and/or vandalism of this article. If you dispute the neutrality of the section, feel free to add a tag to it and let's iron it out here. Nuking everything I worked on isn't going to cut it. The sad thing is while you blanket deleted all my edits, I was working on trying to appease you with the last part. How about working WITH me instead of trying to start an edit war? Please also read my response to you in the section above if you want to further question my good faith while undermining a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete it; it was Arzel (talk · contribs). I don't think it belongs there, per previous consensus, but I only tagged it as {{primary-source-inline}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me it was Arzel and not yourself engaging in the edit war. I will issue Arzel a warning on Arzel's Talk page since you didn't. I will address the primary-source issue promptly. I apologize for the confusion. Cowicide (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You should check yourself Cowicide. Do you even know what an edit war is? No go remove your false warning from my page. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, the "blanket deleter" without discussion...? Indeed, it is you that's needs to check oneself. And you just did it yet again. You could have discussed this first with me, but instead you declare yourself the authority and delete it first. Actually, you've now crossed the line. Taking out the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute top 10 polluter information while blatantly leaving the Heartland Institute's "environmental awards" that I placed right next to it shows your absolute bias against even attempting to work on this being a fair and balanced article. How does that work, Arzel? Anything positive of Koch Industries is OK? Anything critical not OK? Wikipedia doesn't work like that.

You can't blanket delete the entire The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute information which is NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE while leaving the Heartland Institute awards in place without being blatantly biased. You have a history of being overly biased and overly protective of Koch Industries. It's time for you to step away and remove yourself from this article. Unlike you, I've made edits that are BOTH critical AND positive of Koch Industries. Unlike you, I've added NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE info to the article while you very selectively slash and burn things you think are negative while not even touching upon the positive. You're acting like a cheerleader for Koch Industries and it's time for you to step aside. If you have further VALID issues with the NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute information, then tag the section with a NPOV tag and let's iron it out here first to work on the wording, etc.

By the way, did you even LOOK at the Heartland Institute info I put there? It's from a biased, libertarian think tank to help balance out a University and you don't even BLINK at it. I'm putting the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute back in place because the Heartland Institute MORE than balances it out. If you have an issue with the University, then you got to also have an issue with the Heartland Institute being there. That is, unless you're biased and only want biased edits. Cowicide (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute is biased, as well. Just because you agree with their bias is no reason that it shouldn't be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, the cat's out of the bag. Biased as well? If they are both biased then why are you ok with the removal of the one (that's critical of Koch Industries) while it's perfectly OK to leave the other one (that's postive of Koch Industries)? You're supporting a blatantly biased edit and now you're wallowing in it. Once again, as I said with the edit's comment and above. The UofM Institute is balanced by the Heartland Institute and you just confirmed that with your own words. You can't have it both ways. It's obvious your libertarian leanings is clouding your judgement. I put in a critical Institute it should get removed. I put in a positive Institute and it gets a pass. That's not how Wikipedia works. Why not take a critical, closer look at the Heartland Institute's information? It's time to bring third party users and administrators to come take a look at what's going on here. STOP the whitewashing, please. Cowicide (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy now? I removed both. The difference is you are here to push your activism, while I simply didn't read everything you added and only removed the section which had been earlier discussed with no concensus for inclusion. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, you're the one acting like a libertarian activist around here who professes your biased disdain for Koch criticism. Unlike you, I put BOTH positive and negative info in the article. It's you that ignores the positive bias unless I bring it up. So now you just delete both because you can't have it your way and have ONLY the negative? This isn't how Wikipedia works. I'm currently in the process of bringing in disinterested third parties. Hopefully they'll be here soon with their input and we can reach consensus on what to do next. I will hold off on any further editing until there's further input from disinterested third parties. That is, unless you blanket delete entire sections again because of your biases and I will revert it and report you to administrators. Cowicide (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It would help if we could have a listing of the particular items that "ought" or "ought not" be in the article. And as part of the listing it would help to have rationale that justifies inclusion or exclusion of each item. The discussion above is not helpful and seems to be going in circles. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about all the issues, but the Mass Amherst study was discussed earlier and there was no concensus for inclusion. Basically, because of the way the study was done and the lack of much in the way of reliable sources making anything of it, it was viewed as POV and would require quite a bit of text to put the study into context. Since the study did not take into account industry size, it basically lists the largest companies as the largest polluters. When put into context of largest polluters in a single plant they don't make their list. The focus on Koch appears to be solely political as well (because of the Koch connection to libertarian causes, of which this current flareup is a perfect example) as other companies, like Bayer (#1), have no such focus from this report. This issue is simply not large enough to warrent inclusion and all of the other context required to maintain a NPOV. Arzel (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible WP:CANVASSING

Language in the nature of

I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance

when canvassing for additional editors is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS as it is absolutely not "neutral" as is required by that behavioural guideline. Posts made in response to such campaigning may be ignored by any admin closing any such discussion as violative of previous ArbCom statements (WP:False consensus). Collect (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's very selective editing there, Collect. You strangely forgot the part where I asked for disinterested third parties and my goal to make the article more informative and encyclopedic. What are you afraid of? True consensus instead of your little biased meatpuppet libertarian party? And, your worst nightmare? Cowicide (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a stern warning to begin heeding WP:CIVIL; you're attacking everyone else in this discussion on top of canvassing. If you continue, you should expect to be blocked for general disruption. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How about a stern warning for all the biased whitewashing of this article as well? It's interesting how a conservative has come running here to assist the libertarians. I've got a stern warning for you. Help stop the POV edits or be a part of the problem. Maybe I ask how were YOU contacted to come here and by whom? Transparency, please? Cowicide (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the damn edit history of the article for g-d's sake! Your m.o. of accusing everyone else of COI, POV, Tagteaming, and any sin you can imagine is tiresome to the nth degree now. For an example of my "POV" look at my edits on Carmen Ortiz and try to reconcile them with your broad accusations. And I would, of I were less civil, tell you precisely what to do with your "stern warning" (noting the nautical definition of "stern"). Collect (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I disagree with Nyttend about this being canvassing and I would warn EVERYONE to start using civility here and work together before this article is locked from all editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read how the posts were worded? And you can honestly state that those posts were "worded neutrally" as is required by the guideline? Really?????? 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Clearly "Campaigning" based on the wording. From WP:CANVASS Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. Arzel (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the topic itself was presented in a non-nuetral manner....if you feel strongly and feel you are accurate, use the notice boards. All this is is uncivil fighting and conflict right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I read it, since it was sent to me. I'll point out a few things. The note states that he doesn't care if anyone is a particular political affiliation, even me. Please don't confuse campaigning with canvassing. They are two seperate issues. If you feel that the editor has stepped over a line, you may use the Admin notice boards. Until then, these are accusations discussing the contributer and not the contribution. And I am more than familiar with the group of editors here and the way they can sometimes create as much drama as they accuse others of. Either work together or step back. And I mean this to everyone. I don't agree with Cowicide about adding a controversy section, but they are not the only one that can be accused of not working in an appropraite manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeez! I pointed out to Cowicide how the message in his posting was inappropriate. S/He responded with a less than receptive remark. (Please see his/her talk page.) I regret that a separate section about his/her behavior had to develop – I thought my templates would fix the problem, but I was wrong. Amadscientist, would you be so kind as to hat or collapse this section? Maybe we can then get back to addressing specific edits that should or should not be made in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate for me to close the section as an involved party, but agree with the closing should any non-involved party wish to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

An alternative perspective

Despite the above mess, and as someone uninvolved, I would like to advocate a different position: that there is a real need to improve our coverage of criticisms and controversies surrounding all things Koch. Some such topics are attributable to a specific Koch entity, but many of them involve overlapping interests, agendas, activities, and critiquing of the Koch brothers, Koch family foundations, KochPAC, Koch Industries, as well as other related groups. This is a broader problem that needs to be addressed from an encyclopedic perspective.   — C M B J   06:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not to forget Political activities of the Koch brothers, which is probably where most of this stuff ought to be concentrated. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's actually my first link.   — C M B J   00:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've just pointed out to Cowicide that pursuing proper channels of dispute resolution would be a much better way to go about addressing the perceived issues here. I would suggest that either WP:DRN or an WP:RFC right here would be good ways to move forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Before you start asking for DR/N, why not try to work together. The best practice is to discuss on the talk page and work out a compromise. You may use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard at any time, however, working together is always better than conflict.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Political activities section

The POV and off-topic tags were removed from the political activities section, saying that it is neutral now (diff), but I don't see that any changes have been made to the section. Any thoughts on how to improve its neutrality/straying issues? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Took a swing at it, though there's still an inline context tag I'm not sure how to handle. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

include Koch Carbon

Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David H. Koch.

• A Black Mound of Canadian Oil Waste Is Rising Over Detroit May 17, 2013 New York Times

99.119.129.121 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A company wich takes waste from petroleum ptoduction and sells it to Europe as fuel - preventing its accumulation in Canada. Green. Collect (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

http://kochcarbon.com/Default.aspx. 135.209.239.206 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It says "affiliate"; that's not the same thing, and that article is an inappropriate source for what you say it says. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, after some checking, I think that affiliate may be the similar to subsidiary. An affiliate may be a subsidiary if the primary company has 51%+ ownership in the other company. It is not clear if that is the case here, but it is possible that Koch Carbon is a subsidiary of Koch Industries. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. What I meant to say is that the NYT article was being used by a number of the socks of the IP, on a number of different articles, to support something it didn't say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(Od)

Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David H. Koch.

12.204.129.45 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevance? (You're clearly the sock of an already blocked IP, but I choose to accept your comment as not being disruptive.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Greenpeace "expose"?

An IP is repeated adding the following material:

On August 14, 2011, Greenpeace published an expose titled "Toxic Koch: Keeping Americans at risk of a Poison Gas Disaster," in which Phil Radford stated that “Koch Industries [played a] leading role in blocking comprehensive chemical security legislation in Congress.”

It needs a reliable source. Greenpeace is not a reliable source except for its own opinions, and its opinions in this instance appear not to be important enough for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

US Government shutdown of 2013

Can someone put in a section on Koch Industries' links to the US government shutdown in 2013. Company has issued a letter on the issue, so a section on this would help people from outside the USA, to understand what has been happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.112.230 (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Koch have an insider at Wikipedia?

While I am not saying they do, the speed in which edits are deleted is remarkable. They will accept as fact articles by less than reputable sources such as Newsmax and Weekly Standard, and not real news sources. (IP)

When material is added which is already in the article, it is highly likely that the repeated material will be removed. This is known as "following Wikipedia policies and guidelines." You will, moreover, learn that accusing experienced editors of being paid for in any way is a sure and quick way to the exit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am just saying I have posted from reputable sources, and they have been deleted, and NEWSMAX and The Weekly Standard sources are cited and allowed in as fact. If I put in a Huff Post citation, would that stand as a fact? (IP)

Please note: WE DO NOT LIST THE SAME CLAIMS TWICE IN SUCCESSION IN A SECTION. Is this actually clear? I dislike using all caps, but I fear you may need them. Collect (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been civil to you Collect, please do not be condescending to me. I am more than willing to have a civil, even spirited debate. All I ask is to point out what I need to do to improve my post. If we can start over, I am more than willing to resume a civil discourse. Thanks I will also point out that I am looking into an article that uses Mother Jones as a source, and see whether they are using it to bolster an argument with a statement of fact, or simply quoting a statement. My best!

• Yeah Collect, careful with your words; you'll get blocked before you know it. Pointing out that putting duplicate information in an article is silly is probably a kind of oppression. Eh, IP editor, I cain't read very well, but even I don't need the same information (known carcinogen, $20 million fine, etc) in consecutive paragraphs. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, we know that they hired New Media Strategies in 2010 to work on the Wikipedia. The editor, WWB (talk · contribs), using the name NMS Bill (talk · contribs) was conscientious and followed policy, and recommended changes rather than making changes directly. Acting as a paid representative, he recommended adding a subsection to the environmental record section extolling the awards that Koch Industries has received. I didn't dig around to see how long that text remained intact, but there have been similar (sometimes somewhat excessive) additions, which were subsequently removed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the removal, which was clearly against Wikipedia policy. If the undue comments about the environmental failures are to be reported, so should the environmental awards, even if suggested by a PR man. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party categorization

Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles, added categories must relate to the material in the article. There has been some past talk page discussion about the Tea Party & Koch, but article has nothing in it at present. – S. Rich (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I may not know a lot about KI, but this is an easy subject to research. I mentioned this on your talk page, but other sources are just as easy to find. It turns out that KI is seen as being related to the TPM. An additional example would be this, which not only includes "Koch Industries" and "Tea Party movement" as keywords but mentions that Fink heads KI lobbying 'and' co-founded AFP with David K. Less neutral -- but still reliable -- sources are blunter: one article is entitled "Koch Industries: We Don't Fund Tea Parties (Except For The Tea Parties We Fund)".

Now, according to policy, these sources are reason enough for the category to be included. MilesMoney (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you read your last link, you will sea that the Koch Industries do not fund the Tea Party Movement. They do give money to Americans for Prosperity which has funded Tea Party events. Americans for Prosperity is already in the Tea Party Movement category. Iselilja (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

MM pinged me with the same editorial (I wonder if Frank is related to me). I agree, it does not name Koch Industries as a contributor. – S. Rich (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

They don't just give money to the TPM-funding AFP, David K. co-founded it with Fink. These are the same people wearing multiple hats. MilesMoney (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

We are still stuck with Wikipedia RS requirements -- the sources gotta directly support the material. (And NPOV has got to be part of the editing.) Of course the Koch's provide big bucks support here and there (like to numerous arts institutions in NYC & a prostate-cancer research center), but that does not mean KI supports TPM. (And the New Yorker Mayer piece does not understand libertarianism at all.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I find the sources far more convincing than your argument against them. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the sources. They say what they say. But they do not say that KI is giving money to TPM. In fact, KI denies that they give money.) If you can convince other editors that such is the case, have at it. – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that you're relying on a thin legalism; the notion that a closely-held corporation can be completely distinguished from its owners. The example of Fink shows that the Koch's have blurred any such boundaries. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Koch Industries funds Tea Party. Really." The existence of these allegations in reliable sources is reason enough to consider this article to be under the Tea Party umbrella, both for categories and for topic bans. MilesMoney (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at Rachel. At 1:13, she talks about "the one degree of separation"; 1:40, "Koch Industry guys"; various, "corporate funded logos" referring to Heartland, etc. But she does not say KI is funding TPM. I'm fine with saying the Kochs support XYZ organizations. Those statements can go in the Koch Bro. and XYZ org articles. But we get into SYN if we say "a. the Kocks support XYZ, b. the Kochs gets their money because they own KI, c. XYZ supports TPM, therefore, d. KI is supporting TPM." – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained why there's not even one degree, in the case of people such as Fink who work for both KI and AFP. In any case, you don't understand WP:SYNTH or its relevance, so your conclusion doesn't matter. MilesMoney (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Env and safety section passage removed

I deleted the text:

Another source reports that Koch has had only "eight instances of alleged misconduct ... over the span of 63 years" and states that compares favorably to the fines, penalties and judgments accrued by the General Electric corporation.[39]

for several reasons: (1) the cited source is only commenting on the actual source of the claims, a Bloomberg article. (2)the only is a weasel word not appearing in the source (3) the passage implies that being compared favorably to GE is a good thing. But what if GE is the world's #1 violator, and Koch is #2? (As a matter of fact, the Political Economy Research Institute ranks GE as the 9th worst air polluter and Koch as the 14th in its top 100 air polluters list). (4)The source is essentially an opinion piece on the original article. It assumes without justification that the eight incidents investigated are the only ones that occurred. There are certainly other reasons that a rather long article would choose a subset of violations to write about. -Wormcast (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I restored it, with modifications. The second source (for the removed section) is reasonable criticism of the first source. Either we note the fact that the second source notes the first source is misleading, or we remove both. That is a relatively total set of fines for such a large company, making the first sentence WP:UNDUE, without some explanation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The article reports that the eight instances are the only ones that Bloomberg and they found. That seems to justify "only", even if not in the article. I would accept the first sentence if the fines were compared to the gross income or net profits of the company over the time-frame. It would require a reliable source to make the comparison, but that is required to give context to the first statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Indiviglio piece is written in the tone of a blog entry, first person and personal judgments throughout; it offers no evidence that the Bloomberg findings were exhaustive. The settlement for 300 oil spills alone indicates that there were numerous smaller violations either collectively addressed or prioritized. Bottom line: the 'only' is misleading. With respect to the size of the fines, I can only say again that a comparison to a single other company's fines is meaningless at best (i.e. is GE representative of large corporations?), and potentially quite misleading (i.e. maybe GE is the worst out there). Also, Indiviglio's off-the-cuff googling does not even match the time frame of the fines in question. The Atlantic could do well to pay more attention to the barrier between opinion and news story, imo Wormcast (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin:, your TPM topic ban is "broadly construed", and I think you might be violating it by editing this article, given the intimidate connection between KI and the TPM. I may be mistaken, but if so, I'd prefer to hear an admin (other than you) tell me so. MilesMoney (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As there is no connection (intimate or otherwise), there cannot be a violation. As Justice A. Scalia once said, everything is connected to everything – "broadly construed" does not entail "construe so as to inhibit any contribution, simply because there is a remote possible connection". – S. Rich (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Koch Industries: We Don't Fund Tea Parties (Except For The Tea Parties We Fund)" says otherwise. MilesMoney (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I take no position on the categorization, but the best advice for anyone with a topic ban is to stay wide of it, not sniff around the edges. And, no this does not extended infinitely to every subject. The term 'Tea Party Movement' contains the word 'tea', and Camellia sinensis is in the order Ericales, but a TPM topic ban isn't going to be relevant if someone is editing articles about blueberries. --RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with Rubin editing Green tea or Communist party. I'm less fine with him editing about a major provider of funding and organizational support to the Tea Party movement. I'll consider your comment a sufficient warning for Rubin and trust that the issue will end with this. MilesMoney (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Terminated!!!

The arty]icle as now says "After Koch Industries' investigative team looked into her findings, the four employees involved were terminated. A " Is this true the employees were killed!! Or rather was their employment contract terminated?? A reference to killing employees would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.23.147 (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, it would be so awesome to have a reference to employees being killed. /snark. Now, in the business world, when you are terminated, that is an actual reference to "You're fired, pack your bag up, and get out." ViriiK (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

IPA

Is this supposed to be pronounced like "coke"??? —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

Evidently so. KOKE..Flight Risk (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The name is Dutch. Many Dutch sounds don't occur in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice ax1940ice pick (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)