Talk:Koch, Inc.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.181.128.190 (talk) at 05:18, 23 July 2011 (Talk:Tea Party movement ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole ... Merchants of Doubt, Requiem for a Species, Planetary boundaries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:18, 23 July 2011 by 99.181.128.190 (talk) (Talk:Tea Party movement ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole ... Merchants of Doubt, Requiem for a Species, Planetary boundaries)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Business C‑class Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled old thread

Koch Industries, the largest privately-held oil company in the United States, has frequently been taken to task for its environmental infractions. In September 2000, the United States government brought a 97-count indictment against the company; after the inauguration of George W. Bush, the number of counts dropped from 97 to 9; two more charges were dropped in March, and the case was finally settled by the Justice Department two days before it would have gone to trial.

Above should strike out the word "oil" in the statement "largest privately-held oil company" as Koch owns many different types of businesses, as the main page clearly shows. I would add that "frequently" is a matter of opinion as only 1 example is cited above, hardly meriting the label of "frequently".

The other reason I take issue with "frequently" is that adherance to all laws of the land are drilled into employees from Day 1, and as we are trained "10,000 percent compliance is expected - 100 percent of employees complying 100 percent of the time with the law and all Company policies". I can testify to the fact employees are removed at a moment's notice if evidence they are NOT complying is found, having watched several employees go for just that reason.

Again, not sure this is the correct way to dispute something nor if I did this in the correct way, if not, someone feel free to correct me/offer suggestions.Predator42 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is the biggest ?

Please note this entry for Cargill:

Cargill, Incorporated is a privately held, multinational corporation, and is based in the state of Minnesota in the United States. It was founded in 1865, and has grown into the world's largest privately held corporation (in terms of revenue).

A search on Google also gave this info (in a chached page):

With more than $350 billion in assets plus another $650 billion in outstanding mortgage-backed securities, the Federal National Mortgage Association—better known as Fannie Mae— is the largest private corporation in America.

As well as this one:

In today's ever demanding economy, Wal-Mart has recently become the front runner in the race to be the largest private corporation in America.

KeyStroke 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Cargill is, although Koch will be. Once Koch completes its acquisition of Georgia-Pacific, it will surpass Cargill as the largest private corporation, as measured by revenue. That's according to Forbes magazine's annual list of the largest private corporations. Fannie Mae and Wal-Mart are "private companies" only in the sense that they are not government-owned. In the sense used in this article, Fannie Mae and Wal-Mart are "public companies" because their stock is traded on major stock exchanges. Lobosolo 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Purina

The link to Purina makes no mention of Koch Industries.

That would be because Koch sold its Purina interests some years back - I know this as I work for a business Koch owns, and the training they send us to that introduces us to Koch industries and teaches us how they do business mentioned Purina and the fact that Koch quickly disposes of assets it deems not profitable enough or cannot turn around to be profitable quickly enough - Purina was specifically mentioned as a failed experiment.

Apologies if this was not the correct place to put this or if I did something in the wrong way - this is literally my first Misplaced Pages posting. Predator42 (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bush and Koch relationship

Bobby Koch (married to George Bush's sister) is NOT the son of Fred Koch, co-founder of Koch Industries. This is misleading to point out in the critism section without providing any connection other than last name. Vewatson 17:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda?

I removed the propaganda template; this may have been an attempt to say that a section read like propaganda (although I'm not seeing it). However, the template was actually the box used for linking to various types of propaganda - doesn't really fit. CredoFromStart 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

I'd like to make a simple request for a change in the introductory paragraph of this article. Primarily, that would be removing the phrase "securities and finance" from the list of Koch business areas. The Koch website lists all of the others mentioned here -- but not securities. The Koch website does mention "trading" though this relates to commodities, and in fact this is already mentioned in the paragraph. I would make the edit myself, but Koch is a client of my employer, so I'd like someone else's input. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the phrase to just "finance". Per their website "Koch Supply & Trading companies around the world trade and provide risk management services in crude oil; refined petroleum products; natural gas and gas liquids; gas, power and emissions; industrial metals; energy; and other commodities and financial instruments." Emphasis mine. Bonewah (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenpeace report

This section is problematic to me

In March 2010, Greenpeace produced a report in which it stated that that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m to climate change opposition groups between 1997-2008 and, from 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change.

I have a problem with the phrase "climate change opposition groups" is it implies that the groups in question exist solely for the purpose of opposing climate change. Just glancing at the list in question I can say that is not the case. While some of these groups are skeptical of climage change, that is certainly not their only function. In any case, I dont think Greenpeace is really a reliable source on Koch Industries' donations. Still, I can see a use for this information, so I am going to move it to the External links section. Bonewah (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it's sloppy wording. If we reject the work of critics, the article becomes a promotional piece. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberal?

At this point we have "libertarian" in several sources. One editor wishes to change it to "neoliberal" but absent a reliable source using that term about Koch, it would appear inapt. Collect (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

William F. Buckley Jr. called it "Anarcho-Totalitarianism." (Anarcho-capitalism/Anarchy+Totalitarianism) > Koch and Anarcho-Totalitarianism http://www.thenation.com/article/154595/money-well-spent http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/charles-koch-david-koch-b_n_690825.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.183.55 (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

From http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer WFBjr called the movement of which David H. Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate, with the backing of Charles G. Koch, in the 1980 presidential election with presidential candidate Ed Clark. 99.29.186.31 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

!. This page is under ]. 2. The cite does not associate Koch with anarcho-anything. Therefore 3. the claim does not belong in any WP:BLP on any Koch. And 4. I can not find any original source for the Buckley "quote" in context in any case. It definitely appears in no books at all. Buckley tended to make sure all his best stuff ended up in books - but this term appears to date online from ... July 2010. Buckley is dead. I suggest that unless one finds a pre-July cite for the term, that it may well be a fraudulent quote. Not found in any National Review archives either. Collect (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you calling Condé Nast Publications' The New Yorker unreliable? 99.155.146.119 (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Where the sole and only cite for a claim is in an opinion piece, and false quotes abound in the political sphere, it is reasonable to try finding any cite at all prior to July 2010. Absent such a cite, it is reasonable to question whether the words existed prior to July 2010. WP:RS does not mean we must accept wording as Gospel where no other source makes a claim. Collect (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RefDesk: "Using Google Books, I find a quote from the book The voice of reason: essays in objectivist thought, written by Ayn Rand and published in 1989, that says "A term coined by author Ernest van den Haag to describe Libertarianism captures this aspect perfectly: anarcho-totalitarianism" (page 325). Not sure why you were unable to find it. Looie496 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC) " In short, the term is from van den Haag, and not Buckley. Simple? Collect (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

<od>Here is the link: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#.22Anarcho-Totalitarianism.22_source, thanx. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Improving the history section

I'm proposing here a rewrite or partial rewrite of the section currently titled Acquisitions and related milestones; I have researched and prepared a replacement section to be titled Corporate history. The existing section is essentially copied straight out of an SEC filing from 2005 and contains a long list of acquired companies that does not add greatly to one's understanding of the company. The proposde new section covers the same ground, eliminates the mininutae, and adds many important details about how the company started and how it grew. I suggest removing the existing list now on WP:MOS and WP:PLAGIARISM grounds. A few acquisitions may be worth discussing in more detail, such as Georgia-Pacific, but they are covered by the paragraph describing Koch's expansion into new industries (in G-P's case, pulp and paper).

The sources for this new section are principally news articles from Forbes and published books written by individuals involved in Koch's history. I'll hold off making the edit directly just for now; as I've noted on this page before, Koch Industries is a client of my employer and I am very mindful of following WP:COI. Please let me know if you have any suggestions, or if you think it is ready to move into the mainspace.

One additional note: I don't have much to say about the safety awards in the final paragraph of the existing section. It clearly needs work, but I have not yet looked closely at it. Perhaps it could be combined with the existing subsequent Environmental fines section and renamed Environmental record? Just a suggestion. Thanks! NMS Bill (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Following a short discussion with a recent editor of this article, and no objections (or any comment) at the Misplaced Pages Help Desk (search "Replacing a section on Koch Indsutries article" once the page is archived) I am going to make the proposed edit. SpecificaIly, I will replace the bulleted list with the section I have prepared; I will combine the section on Koch's safety and environmental record to the section Environmental fines and rename it Environmental and safety record. I will continue to work on improvements to this article, so if you have any questions or comments please leave them here or on my Talk page. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The changes look quite reasonable. Good Work.--WhalesPsuchsdichs (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed update

Earlier this year, I successfully proposed some updates to the introductory paragraph and History section of this article (about which, see above). Because Koch Industries is a client of my employer, I want to be extra careful to make sure that I have consensus for changes I seek. I would now like to propose amending a section that clearly has the potential to be more contentious, the one now titled Environmental and safety record.

As written, it contains two types of information: details about state and federal recognition of Koch's efforts to protect both the environment and ensure employee safety. At present, nearly all of these appropriately have tags affixed. The second type of information relates to cases in which Koch has paid fines and been held accountable for various infractions. Most of this information is appropriately cited, but it's not always carefully written.

What I have done is re-organized the section so there is a brief summary of these at the top, and the two types of information are separated into two subsections. Revisions to info about favorable recognition is pretty straightforward, written from sources and I have removed what I cannot verify.

I have made fewer changes to the information about fines, but the ones I did are worth explaining carefully. In the Corpus Christi case, the current version focuses on when the charges were filed. To be more encyclopedic, I've changed the focus to the resolution of the case, which occurred the following year. My proposed replacement does omit some details about the violation, because the single charge Koch ultimately pled guilty to was about reporting, not pollution. This can be verified with the DoJ press release cited. Second, about the lawsuit over federal and Indian land, the current version includes an accusation that it amounted to "organized crime" -- an offhand statement by one of the involved parties that is verifiable but is strictly that person's opinion, and was not truly central to the case. I think what matters here is the outcome, so I have revised it to exclude claims that were not part of the record by trial's end.

To see this version of the article, please visit my Talk page at User:NMS Bill/Koch Industries/Environmental and safety record. I invite any and all to comment, so please respond with any thoughts here. If you believe this version of the section is better than what's there currently, please feel free to move it over, or let me know if you think I should do so. Thanks much. NMS Bill (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Im ok with the changes, although i think mentioning that their headquarters is energy star compliant is a bit trivial. Bonewah (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On a level scale of "puffiness" - it is not of any great consequence. The key is that the article be balanced and accurate, which is where I hope it will certainly end up. Collect (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I am fine with the changes you made. Thanks for reviewing and posting the new section. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Material making contentious claims about living people must meet WP:BLP requirements. The CBS promo does not do so - it is clearly editorial in nature. Sorry. The LA Times was fine as long as you keep to the wording in that cite. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Collect, you do not understand, this is making claims against a COMPANY, not living people. So, BLP does not apply. This citation and the lawsuit is not about the people, but about the company, KOCH INDUSTRIES. What the CBS piece is has nothing to do with it. Nice try. Myk60640 (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And the names in it are of fake and dead people? I somehow think that where claims are made naming living people, that WP:BLP applies <g>. Collect (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Material about the brothers, ect

I have removed some material more suitable for the brothers bio. This article is about the company. --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is some interesting information on the four brothers in this old article from 1998. Its seems to be sourced to "International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 20." so it may be reliable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nicer if there were some indication as to who wrote those articles - all I can find is "meticulously researched in the popular press" sort of stuff. As it is, it is clearly a "tertiary source" which must be very carefully avoided on WP (sigh). Can we establish specific editorial review at the time by anyone with a name of some sort? Collect (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have again removed material more suitable for the brother's article. At this point I have to wonder if an editor is using this page to push some type of POV agenda. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fink, executive VP

There is some mention of this VP and various ties to other organizations? Does this fall under relevant material for this article? How would other articles about companies deal with similar material/isssues. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Koch's support of California's Proposition 23

Can someone add information about the reported million dollars Koch will spend to promote Proposition 23 in the upcoming election in California? 69.181.95.203 (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)l|L Touchstone

Are you talking about one or both of the brothers or koch Industries? That would make a difference it seems about where that material would belong. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

From New York Times October 19, 2010 Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead by Kate Zernike: "Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases ..." 99.155.152.195 (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That almost seems to fit here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Zernike, Kate (October 19, 2010). "Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead". New York Times.

Rich Fink

No reason that to include redlinked person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not even sure this "material" is notable enough for inclusion(see two above), yet alone a red link. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just curious to know more about this person, why so jumpy to exclude redlink within minutes of "asking"? It just makes one MORE curious, or is that your motivation? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it as a person unlikely to ever have an article before. Since (99., 209.) have insisted for weeks on adding him, I would like to know whether you know anything about him which might possibly be suitable for a stub. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP who insists on Rich Fink is absent from the talk page - alas. Collect (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I did some research and created a page for Richard H. Fink.MBMadmirer (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's helpful. It still may not belong on this page, but it is a start. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't. But it might help the person who wants to add that information to have a place to park it. MBMadmirer (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There still seems to be alot of back and forth on this. Is there a consensus for including this "material"? --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It's fine (and I can see someone else reverted my revert to include it). The section is clearly marked and it seems ridiculous not to mention these organizations. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe to you, but I still don't see a consensus for including this. --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a reason to include the material. It looks like a WP:COATRACK to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up before. How big of a big shot is this guy? He just got his own article. How are his outside activities/meberships related to this company and how notable are they? How do other "industry" type articles handle similar "situations" regarding company executives? Lots of questions :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally, officials of a company do not have their individual activities listed on the company article. Collect (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again you guys. This "Political activity" section seems incomplete without giving a name and link to these organizations. I would say it's misleading as is. The official's name seems to be a tangent. I would be in favor of deleting the entire section back to 2005 rather than not mentioning Americans for Prosperity, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Koch Family Foundations and the Mercatus Center. By the way, we had a similar disagreement over at the Tea Party movement which was resolved to everybody's satisfaction by a third party, User:Balloonman (thanks!). Would, by the way, anyone like to vote on consensus? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the organizations supported by Koch Industries and its PACs should be included, provided reliable sources can be found which have accurate information. Fink shouldn't be named; even if the sentence about him were sourced and accurate, it wouldn't support inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. Would you care to do the honors, Arthur Rubin? Here's my first draft (unfortunately lacking in some details, that maybe others here can add to).

"Koch Industries is a longtime underwriter of libertarian causes and the brothers founded the political action committee Americans for Prosperity in 2004, which has worked closely with the Tea Party movement. Active in the 2010 midterm elections, Koch Industries donated $5,000 to the candidacy of Republican Carly Fiorina in the California race for U.S. Senator against Democrat Barbara Boxer. The company also donated $1 million in support of California Proposition 23 which would delay the enactment of California's new law to help stop global warming (Fiorina supports this proposition).

Zernke, Kate (October 19, 2010). "Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead". The New York Times. Retrieved October 26, 2010.
Freking, Kevin (Associated Press) (September 24, 2010). "Koch Industries helps sponsor Fiorina fundraiser". BusinessWeek. Bloomberg. Retrieved October 26, 2010.

-SusanLesch (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that one donation is not really notable given the broader claims about Koch. MBMadmirer (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Does "one donation" refer to my first draft? If so, then I must assume you didn't read it. If not, then I have no idea what you're discussing. Could you please be specific? -SusanLesch (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to the Fiorina bit. Sorry, that wasn't very clear. It is clear that the company and the brothers have given to a number of people. One report noted that they gave to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Does it make sense to list all of the donations? If not, what is the basis for picking a subset? Actually, there are a number of problems with the text. Americans for Prosperity is not a political action committee but a 501(c)(4). MBMadmirer (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I added a summary of some of The New Yorker article. Maybe you'll be able to correct my errors! Thank you for your corrections here. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The added material is all about the Koch brothers and the organizations they support; possibly, it could be in Koch family or Koch Family Foundations, but not in this article, without further sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure those other articles already go into painful detail about this, but try to stick to "material" that is specifically related to the article subject. --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi you guys. Neither one of the suggested articles (Koch family or Koch Family Foundations) even appears in this one. It would take a person a lot of drilling to find them. Also, the lead in this one says: "Koch Industries is also known for its sponsorship of free-market foundations and causes." So you two Misplaced Pages users have effectively blocked any mention of what foundations and causes this company supports. I'd say not good and that the "Political activity" section is on its way out. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a really good point about Koch family and Koch Family Foundations. They should probably be in a See Also section, like they are for Charles G. Koch. I think that part of the confusion here is actually due to the actual underlying facts. I think that there is a broad confusion in the reporting about the various bits of the Koch world. The brothers give money, the foundations give money, and the company lobbies, oversees a PAC, and is involved in some issues like the ballot initiative. I think that an appropriately scoped and researched section would be appropriate and important. But being sloppy about all those distinctions doesn't help. MBMadmirer (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Formaldehyde

The formaldehyde sentence/paragraph in the "political activity" section seems problematic on a number of levels. In particular, there's no reference, and the "large quantities" is not particularly encyclopedic. It also strikes me that there's no particular reason why this chemical is different from other ones that Koch may be involved in. Thoughts? MBMadmirer (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly understand why Koch would want to have the statement removed from the article. — goethean ॐ 15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the substance of what I said? As I have disclosed on my user page, User:MBMAdmirer, my employer does have a business relationship with Koch Industries, but that that is not guiding or impacting what I am doing here. And I do indeed admire them. But I am doing my best to participate in accordance with WP:COI, WP:NPOV, among others. I believe that I am pointing to legit problems with this sentence and paragraph and raising them here for discussion. MBMadmirer (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The latest version is a clear WP:SYN violation. I've restored what I could, but I'm not convinced the Huffington Post is reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you describe exactly what you believe has been synthesized? — goethean ॐ 14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of the two sentences is synthesis. Besides, the first sentence also includes that fact that Koch Industries manufactures formaldehyde. The name of the specific subsidiary and location of the specific plant seem irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a synthesis, because I didn't advance a new position. The position advanced is already spelled out in the Huffington articles. — goethean ॐ 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Did we ever address the WP:RS issues with Huffington Post? I see that the reliability questions were removed from the text. These are both from the unedited section of HuffPo. One of them is a cross-post from DesMogBlog, which is almost certainly not reliable. Anyways, just wanted to swing back to this. MBMadmirer (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this "material" sourced to a blog. Maybe if reliable sources can be posted here, that would help. --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This DeSmogBlog? 99.155.150.154 (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a blog, and your comment isn't helpful in either case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

NYT — goethean ॐ 21:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

muckracking can be a noble cause, but I am not sure this project is the right forum for it. So georgia pacific is trying to say formaldehyde is safe and gave money to whom and did what exactly? --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the article confused you. I'll write it up when I get a chance. — goethean ॐ 03:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, can't wait :)....--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not too impressed by that NYT article. I too, await a proposal for addition to this article. Bonewah (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Request discussion of ==Political activity== From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries donated $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industri

Political activity

From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries donated $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries is the major source of funds of what Greenpeace calls "climate denial". Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

Let's discuss before deletion? 99.60.125.124 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of this is 'according to Greenpeace', 'Greenpeace calls' etc etc. I would not call Greenpeace a reliable source in this context. This is, essentially, the opinion of a single, partisan group. Bonewah (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, they are reliable as a watchdog group. I believe they've been upheld as an RS at RS/N. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenpeace may be RS for its opinions and not for statements of fact. There is a big difference there. No RS/N discussion other than for its ancillary site "exxonsecrets.org" which was found citable for opinions only. and inter alia. Collect (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Respectable UK newspaper The Guardian seems to think it's reliable enough. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not. The Guardian said, repeatedly, "according to Greenpeace". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Which they printed. Do they discount the opinion? Does any other RS? -PrBeacon (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They neither give it credit or discount it, they just report Greenpeace's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporting it gives credence. I don't expect to convince you or the other protectors of Koch here, but I do want the record to show this editor's objection to such careless dismissals. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion, the Guardian isnt a different source than Greenpeace because they are merely quoting Greenpeace. Again, the Guardian article says over and over "according to Greenpeace" which, just as Arthur Rubin says above is neither confirming or denying Greenpeace's accuracy, merely reporting its content. Bonewah (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss before unilateral deletion ...

The Koch brothers gave more than a $100 million to various right-wing causes. They founded the Mercatus Center, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy which spun off Citizens for the Environment, the Economic Education Trust, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Americans for Prosperity and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
Americans for Prosperity organized 80 rallies against cap-and-trade and it spun off Patients United Now which organized 300 rallies against healthcare reform. Grover Norquist told Jane Mayer, who was writing for The New Yorker, that 2010 rallies were successful in undermining Obama's agenda. David Koch praised the Tea Party when he said, "powerful visceral hostility in the body politic against the massive increase in government power, the massive efforts to socialize this country." In a newsletter sent to his 70,000 employees, Charles Koch compared the Obama administration to the regime of the Venezuelan Hugo Chávez.

99.155.156.235 (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No reference to Koch Industries, direct or indirect, in the quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Compare this to the above section that was there. It was clearly relevant: it was about the lobbying of Koch Industries and donations of the political action committee. 192.223.6.123 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In Kate Zernicke's New York Times 20.October.2010 article "Secretive Republican Donors Planning Ahead" there is a copy of the Palm Springs conference invite on Koch Industries Letterhead dated "September 24, 2010" from Charles G. Koch. Appears public denials and private actions by the Koch family are not the same. 99.54.139.46 (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not conclusive, although it does provide some evidence of relevance — for the first time presented on this talk page. When I was employed, I sometimes used company stationery for private correspondence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The koch suckers need to get lost.23:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.66.28 (talk)

Koch Family Foundations & Philanthropy

"Koch Companies are proud supporters of Koch Family Foundations & Philanthropy" from http://www.kochind.com/Community/default.aspx. And I'm a muckraker? I'd like an apology. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Muckraker/muckraking is actually not a prejorative and is actually noble, imho. I just caution that Wikepedia not be used for it. Since the company supports the KF foundation, that would be ok for inclusion. Rather than a see aslo, maybe it could be worked into the article. Anyways, I will not edit/revert any Koch related articles going forward but will defer to others. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, are they supported by the company? I think that Charles G. Koch supports the Charles G. Koch Foundation, David H. Koch supports the David H. Koch Foundation, the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation is based off of Fred C. Koch's money. The point is that there is clear evidence that these are tied to Charles and David Koch who control the company, but I am not aware of any evidence that suggests money goes from the company to the foundations. MBMadmirer (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Threeafterthree, my apologies! I didn't know that muckraking is "truthful". Thank you for explaining that. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Repower America's '2010 Snake Oil Award'

Repower America recently 'awarded' Koch Industries a '2010 Snake Oil Award'. This seems to be on the basis of a popular web vote hosted by Repower America. I don't know if this is notable or appropriate for inclusion in the article. Perhaps some more knowledgeable editors could decide? 69.63.118.122 (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable "award" by a non-RS source. Two levels below the Hasty Pudding awards. Collect (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This Alliance_for_Climate_Protection#Repower_America ? 99.181.131.48 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Fatal Texas Accident"

This section has no secondary sourcing. A fourteen-year-old accident that killed two people isn't remotely notable. Every business the size of Koch has several of those a year: you could bury Union Pacific, for example, with hundreds of incidents if we were to agree to use NTSB reports and other PRIMARY reports as sourcing, with dozens of subsections for individual states. The editor's original research in relying upon a primary source is inappropriate, and violates WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. THF (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Statesman.com piece KI does take blame in Court. http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/specialreports/pipelines/23pipelively.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.224.224 (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up the subsidiaries

I was looking over the page and noticed that there were some errors in the way that subsidiaries are described. These include:

There is no more Koch Petroleum Group. That was renamed to Flint Hills in 2002. I would suggest removing Koch Petroleum Group in the lede.
Koch Engineering. This clearly existed at one point. Charles G. Koch was the VP of it in the 60s. But I don't see any evidence that it actually exists now. Is there any objection to deleting that?
Koch Fertilizer. In the Koch Industries#Subsidiaries section, the last item mentions part ownership of some fertilizer facilities. It seems like it would make sense to contextualize that by pointing out that there's an overall fertilizer subsidiary described here and here
Also in the subsidiaries section, it looks like there is not a Belgian plant that is part owned, just that there's an agreement, based on this quote "long-term product agreement with a plant in Geel, Belgium" from this page.

None of these seem at all controversial. Would anyone have an issues with this clean-up? MBMadmirer (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing controversial and no objections. Dylan Flaherty 19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done the first two because they are super, super minor. I'll probably hit the other two in the next 24 hours if I don't get any other feedback. MBMadmirer (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The new pipeline accident subsection

Overnight, an anonymous editor added a subsection on pipeline accidents. It strikes me that this is basically the material that was described and deleted by THF as WP:UNDUE and described above on this talk page at Talk:Koch Industries#"Fatal Texas Accident". My sense is that the Lively accident is worth mention, but the bit that THF deleted had a lot less problems than this new one, right? MBMadmirer (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any justification for having deleted it in the first place. It is hardly undue to mention this. Dylan Flaherty 15:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Then gain consensus for adding it. Absent seeking consensus in an orderly manner, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's undue weight. All pipeline companies have accidents. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we slap an WP:UNDUE or POV tag on it and litigate it out? I still think that the previous one was much better. 300 leaks and we get 3 paragraphs on this one? MBMadmirer (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a reason not to include. If all pipeline companies have accidents, perhaps all pipeline company articles should discuss them. I don't know how notable this specific instance is... and I'm definitely not going to argue or edit war over inclusion, but that the industry in general has shared issues doesn't seem like a reason to exclude information. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a reason to reduce it to one paragraph, in the absence of a reliable source that Koch's accident rate is higher than the norm. (Note: I am not making a statement as to whether I believe Koch's accident rate is higher than the norm.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all companies have accidents, therefore it is entirely reasonable to report these things. Feel free to add accident reports to all the other oil company articles. However, the amount of space we give accidents in this article depend more on the specifics of what accidents happened and what we know about them. That's only fair, right? Dylan Flaherty 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the 300 leaks part from "Pipeline Accidents", since it was redundant. So, here's another news quote on the 300 leaks:"However, the federal Office of Pipeline Safety, the agency that regulates the pipeline industry, took no enforcement action against Koch — even after the Justice Department attributed most of about 300 leaks from 1990 to 1997 in six states to Koch's failure to properly maintain thousands of miles of pipeline.""Depositions in the two lawsuits and other records raise troubling questions about the inner workings of a major pipeline company and the agency that is supposed to ensure that pipeline companies meet federal requirements.""When asked under oath by government lawyers whether the company failed to report pipeline spills as required by law, a Koch pipeline executive and a company lawyer declined to answer, invoking their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. The lawyer took the Fifth 17 times."http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/specialreports/pipelines/23pipeenviro.htm

" "We discovered that 80 percent of the spills were caused by corrosion," said Michael Goodstein, a senior attorney for the Justice Department, which with the State of Texas prosecuted Koch under the Clean Water Act. "http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/specialreports/pipelines/23pipegathering.html

I've noticed pipelines often skip over items THEY should have under control, like all type of corrosion. Read the whole piece. How often does DOJ sue a pipeline? KI, Colonial, Kinder Morgan, & El Paso NG are the only ones I can think of quickly. KI's pipeline leak rate went down sharply after these cases, as noted in one of the Statesman.com pieces. And, there's individual pipeline accidents listed elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. I'm still new at this, so I'm not sure how to set up my user name.--Pipeexaminer (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Signing up is optional, although I'd recommend it. Signing your posts on talk pages, however, is mandatory. Just end with four ~'s and they'll be automatically expanded.

In any case, I initially missed your comment, but now I have follow-up questions. Why is the "300 leaks" redundant? Also, given the sources above, it's not at all undue to go into more detail here, because there's actually something interesting going on. We clearly have information all but stating that Koch failed to report pipeline spills (although we have to be careful not to overstate it, for obvious reasons). We also have information about improvements after these cases, apparently due to KI now taking corrosion seriously. All of this clearly belongs in the article. Dylan Flaherty 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm finding new newspaper article online now to document things better. Hence, just a nutshell about KI's 300 pipeline spills. The replies to New Yorker about the Lively TX pipeline deaths case is a good thing to add. And, take a look at the US section under "Pipeline Accidents"; I'm not picking on just KI.--Pipeexaminer (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

References (2)

The text I restored reads:

Contributing was the poorly written and confusing safety pamphlet given to residents by Koch about safety around their pipelines. The families of the dead had never received the safety pamphlets.

Now, if you go to http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1998/PAR9802S.pdf, on page 14, you'll find:

The two families that suffered fatalities were not on the mailing list.

In context, you can see that the mailing list is for the safety pamphlet, thus supporting the second sentence.

Now, on page 15, it lists the changes KI made to the pamphlet afterwards as a result of the Hazardous Facility Order:

Revising safety information to include pertinent information on detecting a pipeline leak and actions to take when a leak is suspected
Revising safety information to include pertinent information on detecting a pipeline leak and actions to take when a leak is suspected.
Prominently highlighting material in the new safety brochure on:

how to identify Koch’s pipelines,
precautions to take around Koch’s pipelines during excavation activity,
how to identify a pipeline leak and a highly flammable vapor cloud, and
actions to take in addition to notifying Koch, when a leak is suspected or a vapor cloud is detected.

I believe it is fair to summarize this as the safety pamphlet being poorly written and confusing. Otherwise, why would these changes be required?

Now, as everyone here knows by know, I'm a reasonable person who's easy to get along with. I would be quite willing to discuss alternate wording, particularly for the first sentence. However, I believe I have shown how the reliable sources already cited do support the content. Any questions or should I just roll this back in? Dylan Flaherty 18:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. And again, if they never received the pamphlet, how would its being confusing matter? --Onorem ♠Dil 18:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing synthesized in the second sentence, and the first one can be restated to be closer tot he source.

As for why it matters, read the report. The pamphlet is what tipped off one of the survivors to report the problem, preventing it from getting even worse. The NTSB concluded that if everyone near the pipe had pamphlets and if the pamphlets had been clearer, the leak would have been detected earlier, perhaps avoiding some of the fatalities. Dylan Flaherty 18:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Recognizing that things can be presented more clearly does not mean that they were originally "poorly written and confusing"...especially when a company is reacting to a tragic situation. Find a secondary source instead of summarizing for yourself and inserting your beliefs into the article. I believe my rewrite still places the blame firmly where it belongs, but doesn't draw conclusions that aren't directly from the sources. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, you can criticize the current phrasing. Now can you offer an improvement? Dylan Flaherty 18:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an improvement that can be made with the sources I currently see. Everyone should have had pamphlets...no argument there. They didn't. How does a pamphlet being confusing change what happens to those who never saw it? Is there a specific source that says that this situation would have been avoided if the pamphlets were clear or if everyone had received them? (which page discusses the perhaps avoiding situation?) If not, it's original research. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you saying that the clarity of the pamphlet is not relevant to how quickly the leak was detected and reported? Common sense is not original research, it's a requirement for editing. Dylan Flaherty 18:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that without a source that says it was a contributing factor, it's original research to say that it was. It may have been a factor, but it also may have been completely irrelevant. I assume your comment on common sense wasn't suggesting that I lack it. If not, I might consider that a comment on myself instead of the content. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually ambiguous, but I was stating that we are required to use common sense, and that this is not a violation of WP:OR. Even the most cynical reading would only suggest that not everyone is using the common sense they have, which is to say that they are not making the obvious connections between the data points. I don't see how this can be construed as uncivil, much less a personal attack, but let me state outright that neither is intended. If you found it insulting, that was not my intent and I apologize. Dylan Flaherty 14:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(out) Your "common sense" is officially WP:OR q.v. Collect (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your blatantly uncivil remark. I'll note this diff as ammunition against you later! Dylan Flaherty 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BATTLEGROUND. All I did was quote your exact words, whilest you seem to think WP is a game where you need "ammunition." It isn't. Collect (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, that's good, too. Keep it up! Dylan Flaherty 13:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the safety pamphlet wording is a moot point, since the families involved at Lively TX didn't get one. And, I've hear critiques about confusing language/terms about other pipeline companies' safety pamphlets.--Pipeexaminer (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipeline accidents

After the current round of changes, there are some copyediting issues, but I'm not going to focus on those. Instead, I'm going to ask why we lost the detail about there having been 300 leaks. This is a hard number with a clear RS behind it, which makes it better than any subjective description. Dylan Flaherty 13:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, this was actually discussed. See this. Dylan Flaherty 13:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to fix this now as best I could. A link to piece on the EPA agreement is there now.--Pipeexaminer (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I have removed a couple of times now a source from the New Yorker magazine which is little more than a hit piece on the Koch's. It is being used as a source for Koch industries being on the PERI's list of polluters. However, PERI is already being used as a source for the statement, and the NY Mag only makes one brief mention in passing referencing the PERI report. By itself the NY Mag article is not sufficient for the section, the focus of that article has nothing to do with the section it is being used to reference. Even if it wasn't being used to source something to which a much better source already existed, it would be an extremely poor third party source for the statement in general. This leads to a extension of the issue. Is PERI's designation notable? We need a quality thrid party source for the statement. I have also removed GP claim as PRIMARY. Their beef is already being sourced in a third party RS. It is undue weight to have their known biased point of view expressed as well. Arzel (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not hosting an advertisement for Koch Industries -- valid criticism is necessary for a balanced article. And your opinion on a source's bias is highly suspect, given your defense of Fox News and other conservative causes. Such greenwashing is a disservice to wikipedia. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source is clearly biased. We're not hosting an advertisement for Koch Industries or for Greenpeace, which the New Yorker column (I'm now convinced it isn't an "article") is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion it's biased -- please let's at least be clear about that. Fyi the New Yorker article's author is Jane Mayer, an investigative journalist. And this article is about Koch, not Greenpeace, so that's a false parallel. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found any praise of the article, either, so all I have to go on is what it says and how it reads. It reads like a left-wing rant against the Kochs, and such would not be out of place in a column in the New Yorker, so that's what I assume was there until evidence is provided otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless and until some external media source(s) refute the New Yorker story -- with credible evidence -- I vote for the New Yorker story to remain. The magazine is very well respected and credible among the major news media. Up there with the New York Times, Reuters, etc. Mykjoseph (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The New Yorker piece is an opinion piece and not suitable for factual statements. Furthermore, the article has a notable bias against Koch industries. We don't need a source to discredit the New Yorker to see that it fails NPOV, this much is plainly obvious. Arzel (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that Mayer cannot be used, you've misinterpreted WP:NPOV. We can used biased sources, if we note the bias from other sources. Mayer, however, cannot be used, because of demonstrated falsehoods in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I guess what I was trying to say is that op-ed pieces are not generally usable for factual statements, and the obvious bias from this source only illustrates the problem using op-ed for factual statements. Arzel (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record here, Mayer's piece is not an op-ed. Please see WP:RSN on Mayer article reliability -- where several outside editors supported its use as a source, and no outside editors objected. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not an accurate discription of the discussion, and is largely outside the discussion here. Furthermore, just because a few people agree with you, does not make it so. Arzel (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you don't agree with the consensus at RSN, just like you don't agree with many noticeboard discussions about criticism of conservative causes, but my summary is exactly how that discussion has unfolded. The few pro-Koch editors who think Mayer's piece is unreliable have already voiced their objections here (and at related articles, particularly Arthur who seems hellbent on discrediting such criticism). Whatever you think about inviting broader discussion, it is not outside the discussion here. And just because you think it is an op-ed doesn't make it so. Why don't you post your comment at the RSN and see how it flies. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Jane Mayer's August 2010 New Yorker article out?

Is Jane Mayer's August 2010 New Yorker article out? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer 99.181.150.106 (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Koch Industries, not its owners. I don't see anything particularly relevant to the company itself. What addition would you wish to make that relies on that source? Franamax (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mayer is used in a large number of articles - iteraing her charges here would not aid readers in any way. Collect (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So a source gets 'used up' when it is used in multiple articles? That's a strange argument. — goethean ॐ 14:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is used in all the direct Koch articles AFAICT. I suspect it may be found in other articles as well. It is not "used up" it just becomes improper when attached to articles to which its direct relevance is non-existent. Ought her article be listed under every single group or entity to which the Koch's are related? The MIT article? The reasonable line has been drawn. Collect (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your previous argument was not that Mayers was irrelevant to this article, but that Mayers had been used in too many articles. I was simply pointing out that your argument didn't make sense. — goethean ॐ 18:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I said "many" which was, and is, precisely accurate. All 3 Koch biographies directly, the Koch family, and several organizations purportedly funded by them. Having any irrelevant addion here would, indeed, not aid readers in any way. Next time please cite my response correctly. Collect (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The article states law suits and oil spills. 99.181.158.235 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But we have a real source for the lawsuits and oil spills, which Mayer gets wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We'd have to have extraordinary sources for us to use them to reject using the New Yorker as a source. It's tantamount to original research. The better, more "Misplaced Pages" solution is to include even contradictory views which appear in reliable sources and let the reader decide. Will Beback talk 09:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't. The NYT and other discussions of the primary sources contradict Mayer, and the primary sources are available. We cannot include Mayer when it clearly contradicts the unambiguous primary sources. If the primary sources were ambiguous or required interpretation, I'd agree with you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone point to these sources? have they been discussed on this page already? Will Beback talk 10:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the sources that Mayer contradicts are already used on the article page. Because Mayer reads like an opinion piece, and the others read like news, Mayer should be out in regard those "facts", and probably most of her comments about Koch Industries, although that may need further discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading Misplaced Pages policies. Primary sources do not trump secondary sources. See WP:PSTS. Again, please point to the specific sources to which you are referring. Will Beback talk 00:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the Jane Mayer article potentially in, then? 99.181.145.53 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at the RSN thread seems to be that the sources is reliable. Where material is clearly an opinion it should be used with attribution, i.e. "According to Mayer..." Will Beback talk 21:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, if Mayer's statements are contradicted by reliable sources, the sourced contradictory statements must be added nearby, even if not directly relevant to the section. This is clearly required for WP:BALANCE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's true of any source. Will Beback talk 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The anon, on other articles, has removed sources contradicting their favorites, and/or moved them to other sections. Just wanted to be clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which: 99.181.X.X, you seem to be hounding Arthur Rubin. Please avoid that. See WP:HOUND for the relevant guideline. It would also be helpful if you would register an account so that you would have a stable identity and a user talk page. Will Beback talk 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RSN:The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers

Please see: WP:RSN#The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers. Will Beback talk 23:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about using this source for factual statements, and whether or not it is an op-ed or actual reporting from anonymous sources, the piece reads as largely op-ed from Mayer. The perception from anyone reading the source is an obvious bias against the Koch's making it difficult to believe that any factual statements are being reported in a neutral tone. Given the left's attempt over the past couple of years to paint the Koch's as "bad" people, use of such sourcing put into question the neutrality of articles which rely on such sources. This is particually troublesome when dealing with BLP articles. Arzel (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However for the purposes of writing Misplaced Pages articles, the Mayer article counts as a reliable source. Will Beback talk 06:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV language

An editor is claiming that Koch industries supports free market principles, but only used Koch industry sources. Koch Industries has supported oil and coal subsidies for decades, that is far from a free market principle. There needs to be some distinction made between what they claim and reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.66.28 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by stating "supported subsidies" you are saying Koch Industries (Political activities of the Koch family) is against free market principles, at least in part for them. These subsidies have been from the Federal government of the United States I assume? 99.190.81.3 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All of which is OR and SYNTH at best. Collect (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the current phrasings "is known for supporting free market principles" and "describes itself as supporting free market principles" require a source other than Koch; the latter because it's an interpretation of what they say. The (Koch Industries statement) source says "market-based public polices"; although I'm willing to believe that they do support free market principles, that's not what they're saying. We should be able to find a source other than Koch for the first, but I don't think we're going to find one for the second. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks you for removing my perfectly accurate statement, and adding a perfectly inaccurate statement. It is exactly in line with your past behavior as well as your ideology. — goethean ॐ 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Koch oil lobbied directly against a national low carbon fuel standard in 2007, filing records that state: "Oppose restraints on production and use of energy."

Koch was one of the first oil firms to lobby directly against a national low carbon fuel standard in 2007, filing records that state: "Oppose restraints on production and use of energy." http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/03/22/KochBrothers/index.html Why not add something from this? 99.19.44.88 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a Canadian source. Even if reliable, which "national" is it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Tyee 99.181.155.6 (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The

Koch Industries appears to be particularly attuned to global warming laws which could hurt its bottom line. The company was one of the first oil firms to lobby directly against a national low carbon fuel standard in 2007, filing records that state: "Oppose restraints on production and use of energy."

above quote has an embedded link http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/specissue.php?id=87759&bname=S.2191&name=Koch+Industries&year=2008 within filing records that state ... the nation in question is the United States ... Politics of global warming (United States) more specifically. 99.181.143.101 (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to The Tyee; it's not where I would have looked. It's clearly not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of cite

must be read carefully. I just removed a claim which is not only not found in the cite, but is actually contradictory to what the cite states. To wit, the cite states that the EPA contacted ed "several refineries in Texas" as a result of pressure, and reached agreements which did not involve any of those refineries. The edit which was removed specified that Koch was the object of the pressure, and that it was the beneficiary of the agreement. In other words, 180 degrees off on both parts of the claim. Collect (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the more careful reading of the cite - I missed that on the first reading. I see that the source also mentions a consent decree which we should add to the article. Will Beback talk 17:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Awards section misuse as corporate advertising, not neutral

I'm reluctant to even weigh in on this topic as it appears to me there's an unfortunate battle between "the far left" and "the far right" being waged in this article, which I really have no desire to take part in. Most of the article bounces back and forth in an opinionated way from one side to the other, so while it is hard to not notice writer bias, at least it seems to be coming from both sides. The section titled "Awards" though, (apparently the 2nd section - a little redundant), took up 2/3rds of the entire article, and comes across almost like it's a Koch Industries corporate press release or advertisement. I don't think Misplaced Pages is meant to be a Corporate homepage or free advertising section. I would suggest that the link be left so that interested parties can perhaps read the Koch release, (not sure if this really passes the COI rule or not, but seems ok to me). I mean, it's just overkill...Norbytherobot (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is whether the awards are sourceable (that is, a "citation needed" tag is sufficient or not). Many articles list awards, so asserting that they have "too many" is not a valid argument. The list is a straightforward one, and has no "puff words" saying anything more than the existence of the award. BTW, WP:COI refers to acts by editors with a person and direct interest in the material and topic. Meanwhile, please self-revert to s.q.a. and add the citation needed template as being the proper course of action. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is whether the awards are being used as corporate advertising as Norby states. There are too many awards as well, it simply isn't relevant and should be removed. There is serious issue with paid wiki editors like yourself. This article needs to be edited then locked22:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.66.28 (talk)

The list of awards as proposed seems indiscriminate and not helpful to readers. — goethean ॐ 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Two issues. Does the list mislead readers? Is the list relevant to the article? On the first, I suggest that any neutral list should not be said to mislead readers. Readers can winnow out the trivial awards from actual major ones (yep, lots of trivial awards in that list). On the second, we have lists of all sorts in this article - including lists of fines. Most corporations have been fined at some point, and do not have such lists in their articles. In short, the "not helpful" comment applies more aptly to lists of fines where no one was charged criminally. Winnow out the non-criminal fines, and I will gladly winnow the trivial awards. Deal? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A neat strategy — fill the article with irrelevant garbage which we all know that no one wants to read, edit war to have it retained in the article, and then offer to remove it in return for removing negative material about the corporation. It basically spits in the face of Misplaced Pages policy, but I guess that's okay here. — goethean ॐ 13:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I side with Collect (and it would be wise to stop accusing editors as being paid.) The pipeline leak details do not serve anyone's interest. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a completely valid argument, even within articles, but WP:UNDUE has some of the same effect, especially since some of the awards were for pipeline safety. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I count myself a reasonable conservative, and I really don't see how the average[REDACTED] visitor is well served by a massive slew of awards citations. List a few the company feels is important, then link to a list on the company site. While you're at it, throw up a Controversy/Criticism section and let people throw up anything that's notable and well-sourced. Then let's all have some pizza.Pär Larsson (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources may only be used for material that isn't unduly self-serving. A list of awards obviously qualifies. These awards, if notable, should have third-party sources. See WP:SPS and WP:PSTS. Will Beback talk 12:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. And so do a few others here. Why not take it to RS/N and ask wheter a major corporation is RS for the awards it has received if this is a major issue for you? Collect (talk) 13: 22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which aspect of the SPS policy you disagree with. Here's a recap:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as

the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The claims are unduly self-serving and they involve third parties. The section is based entirely on that single self-published source. If any of these awards are worth noting they will have been noted in 3rd-party sources. Are you suggesting we change the policy, or just ignore it? Will Beback talk 19:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the "unduly self-serving" bit - upon which all of your position rests. The bit about "third parties" does not mean that awards are automaticall deletable -- just to note that, for example, listing an alma mater (clearly a "third party") has never been found to violate this rule. Corporations are, by the way, experts on themselves. Leaving nothing except the fact that many awards are too minor - and note that I removed a substantial number of them. Did that pass your notice? Collect (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Collect on this point. The award section does not seem self-serving and no one seems to doubt the authenticity of the material. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Collect here, the awards section is not unduly self serving, in my opinion. It could, however, still use further trimming just to keep it relevant. Bonewah (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that my latest trimming is likely adequate. Collect (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Still could use moar, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

More what? Another issue is that the material was copied verbatim from the website, a copyright violation/plagiarism issue. Let's just list the most prestigious, notable awards, as determined by their inclusion in 3rd party sources. Will Beback talk 21:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The list could still use more trimming down. I was expressing my disagreement with Collect's statement that his trimming of the list in question was adequate. Bonewah (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WRT "copyvio" - the list is not one. Firstly, a list of simple facts is never copyrightable in the first place. Second, where there is one and only one way of stating a fact, it can not be copyright. Third, if the list were cut-and-pasted, Will might have a vague point. It isn;t, and thus is on all three grounds not a copyvio. End of that straw man. I am editing further, by the way, based on a belief that my substantial edits were not yet enough. Collect (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many ways of compiling a list, and many ways of wording the award citations. We copy the subject's website's language. Will Beback talk 22:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The list should be removed immediately. It clutters the page to a vandalistic extent. It makes it more difficult for readers to navigate the article and hinders then from finding actual, relevant information beyond a intra-industry self-congratulatory circle jerk. — goethean ॐ 22:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this really an award? "Voluntary Protection Programs STAR certification" Certifications usually just mean that one is in compliance with regulations, voluntary or otherwise. Will Beback talk 22:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, awards and certifications are pften similar in nature. Right now it looks more like a "let's have absolutely nothing about Koch being given awards at all, because it clutters the page" sort of argument. Please note the very substantial reduction in the section offered as a rational compromise rather than insist on all-or-nothing for your position. I would gladly restore every jot and tittle if that is your position. Otherwise, why not take compromise as the way consensus works? One might say "Certification is the process through which an organization grants recognition to an individual, organization, process, service, or product that meets certain established criteria." or for award " 1.Something awarded or granted, as for merit." Seems a very large overlap in the usage. Collect (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Compromise would be great, but I don't see anyone suggesting any here. What compromise is being offered? Will Beback talk 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No compromise is necessary, since the included list violates WP:CV as well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, here is a compromise: the article should read:

According to their website, Koch Industries and its subsidiaries have received a variety of industry awards over the past two years.

The list also punishes the reader, in a disingenuous attempt to vindicate the corporation from its documented accidents and safety incidents. Nobody should have to scroll through a list of irrelevance in order to read the article. — goethean ॐ 01:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The list actually makes the company look bad. It's like a resume for a professional position that lists getting a gold star in Kindergarten. "Energy Star certification"? Not such a prestigious award... Will Beback talk 23:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Really Will? You really dont see any compromise being offered here? Did you just ignore the part where Collect said "Please note the very substantial reduction in the section offered as a rational compromise rather than insist on all-or-nothing for your position." Maybe you dont agree that what Collect has offered is acceptable, but the only way you can say that you "don't see anyone suggesting any here" is if you just arent reading what your fellow editors have to say. Bonewah (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Collect picking-and-choosing which entries he wants to keep, based on no objective criteria, is a valid editing strategy. I offer a compromise: add as many awards as we can find 3rd-party sources for. Will Beback talk 02:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Would editors please stop edit warring to restore poorly sourced material and find some 3rd party sources instead? Will Beback talk 07:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would editors stop edit warring to keep out non-sensational, sufficiently sourced claims which amount to a small fraction of the awards listed on the Koch corporate site? The list is not "unduly self-serving", is not a "copyvio" is not "too long" and the idea that it is wrong to show that they get awards is ludicrous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we can't say the company has received awards. It's the desirability of listing these awards and certificates, some of them extremely non-notable, from the company's website. With a barely sufficient source like that it'd be more appropriate to say something like, "KI's website maintains a list of the numerous awards and certificates the company and its subsidiaries receive every year, including such honors as X, Y and Z." Is there an objection to summarizing the list like that? Will Beback talk 11:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Um -- did you somehow fail to note that the list is majorly reduced from the initial list, and really minor stuff is removed? So yes - I object to summarizing a list which has already been heavily truncated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To put it crudely, a smaller pile a crap is still crap. Can you explain what methodology you used to picking whih entries to include? Did you put them in your own words or just use the text from the KI website? If truncating it a little is good then why isn't truncating it more better? Why do you refuse the compromise offer I've made? Will Beback talk 21:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

IOW you are now reduced to "IDONTLIKEIT" as the rationale now that your copyvio claims etc. have been put to bed. I think we already figured that part out, but, last I checked, it is not a sufficient reason to delete material from an article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you haven't even bothered to respond to two different compromise offers. You haven't explained how you decided to chose the items on the list. You've brushed aside my policy-based concerns and falsely accused me of objecting to the material based purely on not liking it. And you've engaged in edit warring to keep your preferred version in the article. That is not good editing behavior. Will Beback talk 23:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear me -- I thunk that excising the vast majority of the list was a compromise. I geuss you are one of those who feel that when you get 2/3 of what you asked fot, that you should ask for another 95% and call that a compromise. LOL! Sorry Will, that is not how the word "compromise" works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What I asked for in my first compromise offer is a list based on secondary sources. This list is 0% based on secondary sources. Whether it has 10 entries or 50, it's still 0% based on secondary sources, so without secondary sources it's no closer to meeting that suggestion. My second proposed compromise is to include a shorter list. I don't see any policy reason why only your version of the list is acceptable. You haven't provided any explanation for your choices, despite repeated requests. Will Beback talk 23:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The list is a secondary source - the primary source would be the actual certificates themselves. The list from the company website is a secondary source, as I suspect you know already, and it is a "credible list" so we can not diss it as being a bunch of lies for sure. But I guess you are trying to find any reason at all when IDONTLIKEIT has been shot down. Your problem now is that you do not have consensus on your side, and that, Will, is that. You may have the last word. It will not change the clear consensus here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The view that a list like that is a secondary source is unusual. I suppose by the same reasoning a resume is also a secondary source, in that the original employment contracts are the primary source. In fact, by the same reasoning it's hard to think of any list that's a primary source.

As for the assertion of a "clear consensus", I don't know if that's intended to be humorous. It's so absurd that I have to take it as a joke. If there were a consensus there would not be this long thread and the award section would not be the subject of edit warring. Since there's been no explanation for the choice of entries included in this list it appears to be arbitrary. No one has provided a policy-based objection to my second compromise proposal, so I'll go ahead and add something like "KI's website maintains a list of the numerous awards and certificates the company and its subsidiaries receive every year, including such honors as X, Y and Z." Will Beback talk

What might be reasonable, in addition to a version of Will's 2nd compromise, is to include any relevant 3rd party environmental and safety awards which appear to contradict the "Environmental and resource fines" section above. However, the 4 awards in the last version seem arbitrary, and at least one appears to have been removed by Collect in a previous attempt. The section needs work, but it's not WP:UNDUE nor a violation of WP:SPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless we refer to outside sources, it's hard to find objective ways of reducing the list to a reasonable size. One important matter is that we already have separate articles on Georgia-Pacific and Invista, so presumably awards to those companies should go in their own articles. One potential violation of SPS hinges on the definition of "unduly self-serving". Claiming to be the recipients of awards is certainly self-serving. Whether it's unduly so is harder to decide. The other issue is that SPS may not be used for the actions of third parties. Saying that a third party gave them an award would could be interpreted as a claim about a third party. It'd really be best to use better sources for the awards, but a few from the subject's website probably aren't so objectionable as a long list would be. Will Beback talk 18:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The use of a Koch Industries PR document as a source in this article

Speaking of unduly self-serving, self-published sources, and unreliable claims, the Koch Industries PR website "Advancing Market-Based Public Policy" which User:Collect and User:Arthur Rubin have repeatedly added to the article needs to be removed immediately. It's not a reliable source for anything other than the opinions of its unsurprisingly anonymous authors. Misplaced Pages should not be a vehicle for the distribution of Koch Industries PR talking points. That Koch Industries supports "free market" foundations is a highly debatable (if not clearly false) opinion, and the use of a Koch Industries PR document does nothing to prove this opinion. (In fact, it arguably detracts from it, if you know anything about the creation of PR documents.) — goethean ॐ 23:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:PSTS: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." The Koch Industries website is a primary source for their point of view. It can be used with care, but the article should be based on 3rd-party, secondary sources. When the Koch Ind. viewpoint is presented, it should be clearly identified as such. Will Beback talk 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a secondary source, but it is undoubtably true and non-controversial that they are known for supporting free market organizations. I would be willing to consider G's point that they do not actually support free market foundations (or, to be precise, support principles antithetical to free market principles), but it would be absurd to assert that they are not known for supporting free market foundations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"I don't have a source, but it is undoubtedly true". You are experienced enough to know that a claim like that has no place in Misplaced Pages discussions. If we don't have a source then let's not add it. Will Beback talk 03:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be working for V at Climategate. He's asking me for sources that something isn't true, while he only provides sources that other sources report that it's true. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who "V" is or what the issue is at that article. But at this article our assertions need to be verifiable. Will Beback talk 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They are known for supporting conservative organization which conservatives identify as "free market" but which in fact lobby for corporate welfare, upon which corporations like Koch Industries depend. — goethean ॐ 01:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't support your point. The article admits (and, being hostile to the Kochs, that is the correct word) that they contribute to free market foundations. That they also receive (and lobby for, although not supported in that article) corporate welfare is appropriate in the article, but doesn't contradict the fact that they do support free market organizations. The first two examples, however, were buying from non-free-market countries, which is not "corporate welfare" in any rational sense of the word. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ambivalence for free-market would be more authentic than pure "support". Let's be adults here. 99.19.41.236 (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be, if it had a credible source. The Observer article is not credible; even if it were nominally a reliable source, the article is self-contradictory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party see also

I do not see any information regarding a tea party discussion to include it in this article. Perhaps the archive for this talk page just isn't linked.

I fail to see where a movement would be included in a see also. If political movements and ideas where included in see alsos the Misplaced Pages page for those like George Soros would be a mile long.

Any information on this decision would be appreciated. Woods01 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Talk:Tea Party movement? 99.181.128.190 (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Vidal, John (30 March 2010). "US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace". The Guardian. London.
"Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine". Global Warming. Washington: Greenpeace. 2010-03-29. Retrieved 2010-04-01.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?year=2008&lname=Koch+Industries&id= Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?year=2009&lname=Koch+Industries&id= Center For Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org
^ Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations". The New Yorker. Condé Nast. Retrieved October 5, 2010.

Categories:

Misplaced Pages