![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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 ...
![]() |
![]() | This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article and should be moved to
Political activities of the Koch family instead. (November 2011) |
... 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. [1]
-- 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)
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)
(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. [2]
and
The Center also reports Koch Industries contributed $1.35 million to winning congressional campaigns in the 2010 cycle.
[3]
[4]
(both edits were added by me
here and
here before being deleted.)
and these tags removed
![]() |
![]() | This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article and should be moved to
Political activities of the Koch family instead. (November 2011) |
neutrality is disputed - BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Is sunlightfoundation.com/blog/
WP:RS or not?
Is talking about Mercatus Center and the Kochs, offtopic?
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. [5]
(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."
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. relevant to this paragraph? – discuss 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. [6] relevant to this paragraph? – discuss The founder of the Mercatus Center, Richard H. Fink, also heads Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington DC. [6] 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." [6] [7]
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)
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)
-- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
From Talk:Political activities of the Koch family ...
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.
99.181.136.158 ( talk) 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
The article currently says:
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)
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)
(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)
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:
From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries was assessed "more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments." [9] 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. [10]
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. [11]
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. [12] -- Arc de Ciel ( talk) 08:07, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It took Collect four minutes to delete this factoid from the article.
... 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:
...in response to the Koch industries statement:
Probably a mistake. I put the informative text back. Sally Season ( talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
Language in the nature of
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David H. Koch.
99.119.129.121 ( talk) 03:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
(Od)
Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David H. Koch. [15]
12.204.129.45 ( talk) 20:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
mayer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).flout
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Oconnor
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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.” [Greenpeace 1] [Greenpeace 2]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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 ...
![]() |
![]() | This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article and should be moved to
Political activities of the Koch family instead. (November 2011) |
... 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. [1]
-- 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)
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)
(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. [2]
and
The Center also reports Koch Industries contributed $1.35 million to winning congressional campaigns in the 2010 cycle.
[3]
[4]
(both edits were added by me
here and
here before being deleted.)
and these tags removed
![]() |
![]() | This section may contain material
not related to the topic of the article and should be moved to
Political activities of the Koch family instead. (November 2011) |
neutrality is disputed - BoogaLouie ( talk) 17:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Is sunlightfoundation.com/blog/
WP:RS or not?
Is talking about Mercatus Center and the Kochs, offtopic?
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. [5]
(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."
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. relevant to this paragraph? – discuss 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. [6] relevant to this paragraph? – discuss The founder of the Mercatus Center, Richard H. Fink, also heads Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington DC. [6] 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." [6] [7]
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)
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)
-- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
From Talk:Political activities of the Koch family ...
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.
99.181.136.158 ( talk) 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
The article currently says:
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)
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)
(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)
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:
From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries was assessed "more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments." [9] 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. [10]
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. [11]
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. [12] -- Arc de Ciel ( talk) 08:07, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It took Collect four minutes to delete this factoid from the article.
... 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:
...in response to the Koch industries statement:
Probably a mistake. I put the informative text back. Sally Season ( talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
Language in the nature of
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David H. Koch.
99.119.129.121 ( talk) 03:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
(Od)
Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David H. Koch. [15]
12.204.129.45 ( talk) 20:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
mayer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).flout
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Oconnor
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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.” [Greenpeace 1] [Greenpeace 2]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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 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)
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)
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)