Talk:Koch Industries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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. [1] and [2] 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia. 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:

1. how to identify Koch’s pipelines,
2. precautions to take around Koch’s pipelines during excavation activity,
3. how to identify a pipeline leak and a highly flammable vapor cloud, and
4. 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 "Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Related discussion on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family. 99.181.141.139 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 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." [3]

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)

See related discussion on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family #RFC the nation most prominent funders 99.181.155.158 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of cite

[4] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. 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.[62]

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... [5]   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. Wikipedia 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: "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

The link might possibly belong under the persons, but so far I have not seen a cite connecting the business to any group. Collect (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would leave it out. The edit summary talking about following the money shows the motivation here. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

because we have david koch on record as pulling the strings of the tea party movement i see no reason why not link from this wiki from this private company. Gise-354x (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If David Koch is 'pulling the strings' of the tea party movement, as you say, you should take that up on David Koch's page. I dont think much of that thinkprogress link, personally, and i seem to remember it being rejected at the David Koch page, but if its got a place anywhere, its there, not here. David Koch != Koch Industries. Bonewah (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

David Koch is Executive CEO at Koch Industries and the Tea Party Movement is his way to manipulate regulations, which concern his enterprise. Why else should he create the TP when not for the purpose of helping his company? Gise-354x (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you know 'what ain't so'. You ascribe specific ulterior motives to a person who is not the "creator" of the Tea Party, which rather means all else of your syllogism fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you have reliably sourced facts to add, lets see them, but you should be mindful of Wikipedia's wp:NPOV policy. Bonewah (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a video record and funding to the Tea Party, so i really don't think that your claim its just soap is justified. I suggest you evaluate again your stance here and re-add the Tea Party Link.

Read USA News Tea Party Funding Koch Brothers Emerge From Anonymity or for example POLITICO Tea party's growing money problemGise-354x (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding new Section for Funding of Climate Change Denial

Collect reverted the change i made with installing this new section, which i undid. Because he claimed that the source is not reliable. This is a new section for the funding of climate change denial and has a few more contends now. SO please do not just remove it. Discuss here, ty.Gise-354x (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC) \

See WP:RS. Treehugger.org does not meet the requirements. Nor does Greenpeace except for opinions acsribed to that organization. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First off you removed the section, that has nothing to do with what you claim. Secondly there is content from Guardian and other sources, which you also removed. I can't find at the link you provide that greenpeace or treehugger is not considered a reliable source. Please link exactly to the page where it says so, ty. Gise-354x (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect removed again the addition, beside the fact that Greenpeace sources are already part of the wiki. I therefor can't take his claim serious anymore. Beside this he removes new additions and the section. Without bothering explaining himself, other then repeatedly claiming that Greenpeace studies are not a reliable source or that the wiki in question is about living people. Gise-354x (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Treehugger.org is not WP:RS. Greenpeae is RS for its own opinions cited as opinion. Cheers - and please stop arguning until you have read ad understood the Wikipedia policies on living people and on "reliable sources." Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The addition is an update to the existing content and improvement.You obviously has an agenda.Your claims are irrelevant because the addition is of the same type as existing contents. And above that you remove new additions and updates. Are you aware what this section is about? Gise-354x (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone that opposes your edits "has an agenda". Have you considered that generally those who accuse others of having an agenda are the ones who actually have it? FOcus on the content, not the editors. Collect, agenda or no agenda, is correct. Treehugger.org is not an RS period (it is not notable enough to warrant inclusion), and Greenpeace is an RS only about itself or when speaking about its opinions, a partisan WP:PRIMARY source. If you need clarification form uninvolved parties, go to WP:RSN. --Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice conspiracy theory Cerejota, and funny that you say this here on the topic of climate denial and funding. Gise-354x (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota and Collect. Take some time to calm yourself and stop attacking your fellow editors. Bonewah (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me where i attack editors? Instead it is you who makes for another time false accusations, your earlier claim i would use wikipedia as a soapbox, and i provided reliable sources for, what you asked for. But since then you did not reply, ignoring facts now? Gise-354x (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I really think you should focus on the article as opposed to the editors here. But since you asked, you declared that Collect "obviously has an agenda." for merely asserting that treehugger is not an RS. Further, you accuse Cerejota of proffering a "conspiracy theory" for merely agreeing that Collect is right. That, to me, is attacking your fellow editors. As for soapboxing, I was referring to your comment that "the Tea Party Movement is his way to manipulate regulations, which concern his enterprise. Why else should he create the TP when not for the purpose of helping his company?" This talk page is for improving the article, not a forum for you to express your distaste for Koch or his company. Perhaps I should have linked you to wp:TALK instead, in which you will find guidelines for what to do on a talk page (focus on improving the article) and what not to do (general conversation, rants, soapbox about the subject). Bonewah (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You obviously did not followed the dispute with Collect as he did not claimed what you allege here. Same with Cerejota. Beside this all 3 of you ignoring the section here. If you like to talk something else beside Funding of Climate Change Denial i suggest you create another section for that matter, ty. --Gise-354x (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Thyee source which was added is using the same Greenpeace source that is being used by The Guardian to make the claim about lobbying. We don't need two seperate sources to summarize the GP claim in two seperate paragraphs. Furthermore, I am not sure The Thyee is a RS. Arzel (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the Tyee material. It counts as a reliable source, and the lobbying against low carbon fuel doesn't appear to be covered else in the article. (Maybe I missed it).   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The $45 million is a from the GP claim that is stated in the following paragraph, there is no reason to include the claim twice. The low carbon fuel statement is claiming to be from Open Secrets, however there is nothing included in the source that Thyee is using to back up that statement (it does not exist). This needs some better sourcing to be included. Arzel (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything about lobbying against the low-carbon fuel regulations. I do see an assertion attributed to Greenpeace about the company donating to groups that oppose the anthropeogenic theory of global warming, but that's a separate issue.

What makes you believe that Tyee is not a reliable source? It looks like it has an editorial staff.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries spent $45 million on political campaigns and on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. In 2007 Koch Industries became among the first oil firms that lobbied against a national standard for low carbon fuel standard in 2007.
• A Greenpeace study claims that between 1997 and 2008 Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to groups which doubt or oppose the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

These appear to be two separate issues. One concerns lobbying, the other is about donations.   Will Beback  talk  06:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It hate having to do research in the morning. The only place I see $45 million in The Tyee is this statement. It is from the WaPo and does not mention Koch industries at all.

Americans for Prosperity played a lead role in the Republican takeover of congress in last December's midterm elections. Budgeting $45 million for political advocacy,...

Koch Industries=!Americans for Prosperity. So that argument, using The Tyee is simply not correct under any circumstance. The Greenpeace claim is not split up like that. The donations are the lobbying, it is not two seperate issues. The original edit made it appear that it was, but it is not. As I said before, the other issue is not researchabe not too mention it is weasely (what does "one of the first" mean?) However, a little research shows that they do oppose LCFS. We can make the statement without the weasel and add their reason. Arzel (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the Washington Post. I'm talking about the Tyee article. I don't see the quoted text in the Tyee article.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read the Tyee article you can see the sources that they are using. The Tyee used a WaPo source (they hyperlink it for you) for the AfP aspect of $45 million. The original editor made a WP:SYNTH connection. No where in The Tyee does it say Koch Industries paid $45 Million.

Why aren't we citing the Washington Post article as well?   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

WaPo makes no mentions of Koch Industries or the Koch's. It only talks about AfP. This statement From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries spent $45 million on political campaigns and on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. is not made in The Tyee. The Tyee does make a statement in reference to AfP and their $45 million budget for political advocacy. The Tyee uses the WaPo article as a source for that statement. The original editor replaced AfP with Koch Industries and inserted it into this article. Pretty straight forward original research. Arzel (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg Markets magazine implicates Koch Industries in dozens of criminal acts around the globe over the past three decades

• GOP Mega-Donor Koch Brothers' Company Tied To Global Criminal Misdeeds In Bombshell Article businessinsider.com
• Koch Brothers Flout Law With Secret Iran Sales bloomberg.com.

Please include the information into the article.84.152.55.83 (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Business Insider" is a blog and aggregator - and has been found not to be WP:RS. The actual Bloomberg article shows that Koch was the one which found the illegal acts in a subsidiary - and is actually quite favourable to Koch, Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"The actual Bloomberg article shows that Koch was the one which found the illegal acts in a subsidiary - and is actually quite favourable to Koch, Cheers." Quite favourable? The title of the article is Koch Brothers Flout Law With Secret Iran Sales.

"The actual Bloomberg article shows that Koch was the one which found the illegal acts in a subsidiary ..." The Koch employee who found the illegal acts was Egorova-Farines. From the article:

"Egorova-Farines wasn’t rewarded for bringing the illicit payments to the company’s attention. Her superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent, even after Koch’s investigators substantiated her findings. She sued Koch-Glitsch in France for wrongful termination."

I put it to you that your statement is misleading, Collect. Cheers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Koch reported the illegal acts of its affiliate. Seems to me that this is sufficient to indicate that Koch did not wish its affiliate to break the law, and the fact that an investigator was fired much later does not mean anything as to why the person was fired. It is not up to Wikipedia to try cases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Before information from the piece is plastered all over the article, we need to discusses exactly what's going to be added, the source of these additions (not Bloomberg but where they got it), and whether or not those sources are legit. This article and the others dealing with the Koch's have a history of vandalism and giving undue weight to critics.Churchillreader (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat the question I put in the edit summary, why was there no mention in the article of the $296 million verdict in the Sterling butane pipeline explosion (before I put it in)? Cheers.

You say, "Koch reported the illegal acts of its affiliate." Not to the public it didn't. The illegal acts of the affiliate where reported to Koch May 2008. The reporter of the illegal acts was "removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired ... in June 2009, [when she was called] incompetent, even after Koch’s investigators substantiated her findings" (from the Bloomberg article). The illegal acts were not made pubic until a "civil court ruling in France in September 2010; the document has never before been reported by the media" (from the Bloomberg article). Cheers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It reported to the proper authorities - as is reasonable and customary. Do you think that reporting to the proper authorities was in any way, shape, or manner improper? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Which proper authorities were reported to? Document disclosure in a civil lawsuit is not a proper reporting channel. Franamax (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

“Those activities constitute violations of criminal law,” Koch Industries wrote in a Dec. 8, 2008, letter giving details of its findings. The result, according to Koch, was the firing of the person responsible for the bribes. Koch Industries took elaborate steps to ensure that its U.S.-based employees weren’t involved in the sales to Iran, internal documents show. Koch Industries may not have violated the law if no U.S. people or company divisions facilitated trades with Iran, says Avi Jorisch, a Treasury Department policy adviser from 2005 to 2008. That’s impossible to determine without a complete investigation, Jorisch says. from the same article. Most of the article, in fact, is simply rehashing charges made in other articles - the only "new" bit is the charge that they uncovered a bribery scheme, and fired the director involved as a result. ( authorized by the business director of the company’s Koch-Glitsch affiliate in France. and they fired him.) Cheers - the actual material is either simply rehashing material already in this WP article, or the fact that they fired a person who broke laws. Collect (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Iranians for Prosperity. Gotta love how the Tea Party benefactors doing business with Iran. It's as Anti-American as you can get. Reap what you sow.--JLAmidei (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote "...not Bloomberg but where they got it" that's kind of an interesting idea. You might consider reading the project's basic guidelines again. Evaluation of journalist's sources is not necessary. Otherwise we can start closing the project down.91.39.82.46 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

In light of the recent Bloomberg article, we need to consider the possibility of requesting semi-protection in the future. Vandalism from unregistered users will inevitably begin shorty.Churchillreader (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this article shouldn't get protected. The Tea Party benefactors did a trade deal with the "Axis of Evil" (quote by George W. Bush). It's toxic no matter how you slice it and will not be swept under the rug easily. --JLAmidei (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Theft of Indians' oil worth 1.5 Mrd. US$

• Greg Palast: Uber-Vultures: The Billionaires Who Would Pick Our President. Any further sources on this?--91.39.82.46 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

alleged bias

The political action section is tagged "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Where is the bias? Evidence must be given or the tag goes.--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've got an example now: calling Greenpeace an "environmental group" without calling it "radical" (some would say "terrorist", but we should not) is a clear WP:NPOV violation. Other examples include:

• 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. I would have used an {{off-topic}} tag rather than {{NPOV}}, but the latter is arguably correct.
• Failing to note that the Koch organizations contribute to Democratic candidates is a clear WP:NPOV violation, even if the contributions to Republican candidates were appropriate, and even if a reliable source says that.
• Even if, contrary to common sense, Mayer is considered a reliable source, her quoting of clearly unreliable sources amounts to repeating gossip, contrary to Wikipedia policies.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• What WP:RS says Greenpeace is terrorist or radical? The WP article about it describes it as environmentalist.
• What comments refer to political activities of the Kochs and the Koch foundations, and should not be in the article?
• Why is failing to note that the Koch organizations contribute to Democratic candidates is a clear (or even possible) WP:NPOV violation? What Democratic candidates have they contributed to? I listed candidates they contributed to that I know of. If you know of some right-wing democrat they've contributed to why not add it?
• What clearly unreliable sources has Mayer quoted? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a Koch money map, if you want to know which palms have been greased.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/21/koch-money/

Hcobb (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In no particular order

• Mayer quotes "exxonsecrets" as if it were unbiased and believed to be accurate; neither is actually the case. Greenpeace, as a whole, is also unreliable, except as to their own actions. Meyer also quoted anonymous sources for what is essentially gossip.
• There actually is a WP:RS which refers to Greenpeace as terrorist; I seem to recall a Japanese government report which calls them terrorist. Check that article history of Greenpeace for details, but it was decided that the source(s) was/were not sufficiently reliable under WP:TERRORIST. "Radical" seems clear.
• Political activities of the Koch family and foundations should not be in this article, regardless of accuracy or reliablity; only political activities of Koch Industries themselves and their PACs, not their employees, or any other Koch units. Mayer, Greenpeace in general, and exxonsecrets in particular, are guilty of this conflation of information, but we should not be.
• If we were talking about Koch Industries contributions, rather than other Koch entities, then the gross amounts and percentages for Democrats would be relevant if sourced. Just saying "contribute to Republican candidates" is not entirely true, so should not be said, even if it were in a reliable source.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Mayer article is a reliable source. I'm getting impatient with the constant attacks on it, none of which have been supported by outside editors. At some point repeated instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT becomes WP:tendentious editing.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was entirely unreliable; but where it says things which are demonstrably false (such as saying the Koch foundations are controlled by Koch Industries, while they might be controlled by the Kochs themselves), it shouldn't appear in Wikipedia without correction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're making a big deal out of a distinction without a difference. If the CEOs and other executives of a company are supporting a foundation, then it is evident that the company is supporting the foundation. Looking at one such assertion, I see it's supported by a Washington Post article which says, "[John D. Graham] also served as an adviser to Mercatus, the staunchly anti-regulatory center funded largely by Koch Industries Inc., the oil and gas company and mega-GOP contributor. Charles G. Koch and another top Koch official serve on the nine-member Mercatus board of directors."[6]   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The specific phrase I was objecting to here was "while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding". If it were replaced by "Koch-controlled foundations", it would be accurate, but inappropriate for this article. (And my "context" tag has been added frequently; it's a Koch (Industries) response to that Greenpeace report, but the full letter shows that it was in response to environmental allegations, not funding/lobbying allegations.) As for "contributions to Republicans", the source doesn't say that; Democrats are also recipients, and the "Sunlight Foundation" source lists a Democrat as having received the most among House members.

And, still, much of this should only be in the main article, not here. I'm adding an "off-topic" tag, as well; as I noticed above, almost all of the phrases I object to are both off-topic and NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to other editors to discuss those narrow points. But the next time I see an editor here claiming that the Mayer article is not a reliable source I will ask for seek community remedies for the reasons stated above.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

When Mayer reports something which is easily contradicted by reliable sources, we either shouldn't include it, or report the controversy in an unbiased manner. Nonetheless, the phrase "Koch Industries-controlled foundations" and the section on donations to Republicans are the only items attributed to Mayer which I'm challenging for NPOV violations. "Off topic" is another matter entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In regard "terrorist", we actually do have a reliable source, namely Japan's Fisheries Agency, which had reported Greenpeace as being environmental terrorists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

<-I think this line "According to at least one critic, the political activity by some of the Koch-supported foundations -- such as Mercatus Center -- helps the company financially. According to Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in environmental issues, “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the EPA, and Mercatus has constantly hammered" on the EPA." is exceedingly biased and irrelevant. We are quoting the opinion of one guy. This has all the appearances of a quote cherry picked to advance a particular point of view, one which is all over the political action section. Bonewah (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not an NPOV problem; it's an RS problem. At least, that's the way I see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not the source so much as the way its used. No matter how impecable the source, its still just the opinion of one guy, appearing in RS does not automatically make it fact. Further, i believe it is a NPOV problem in addition to the relevance issue. The statement has more than one problem. Bonewah (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote, (added by myself) is followed by another

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

and then followed by an example:

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

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

I'd be happy to add the whole thing to show evidence of non-cherry picked nature of the quote.--BoogaLouie (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As for: When Mayer reports something which is easily contradicted by reliable sources, we either shouldn't include it, or report the controversy in an unbiased manner. Nonetheless, the phrase "Koch Industries-controlled foundations" and the section on donations to Republicans are the only items attributed to Mayer which I'm challenging for NPOV violations. As I said before if you have examples of Koch giving to Democrats go ahead and add them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Koch Industries has this editorial ("Why Koch Industries is Speaking Out") on its homepage. Note the title is not "Why Koch Brothers are Speaking Out." Note the editorial does mention Koch Industries support of a specific politician (Scott Walker) and its opposition to another (Obama). ("In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tipoed around the issue of overspending ... Because of our activism, we've been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we're determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges [deficit spending by governments] seriously.") --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The followup quote is blind gossip. Mayer is quoting non-expert enemies of the Kochs and conservatism as informed critics. We don't need to quote them (and, in fact, I believe we shouldn't); however, if we do, we need to note that their expertise consists primarily in being enemies of the Kochs.

The Sunlight Foundation reports significant contributions to Democrats; in fact, the top Representative (by contributions) was a Democrat.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on policies and guidelines, not what Arthur Rubin asserts is "blind gossip" or "non-expert enemies" or what he decides "needs" to be quoted. If the Sunlight Foundation reports significant contributions to Democrats then put that in the article with the proper sourcing. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of cited material

Arthur Rubin deleted this sentence:
During the US 2000 election campaign, Koch Industries spent some $900,000 to support the candidacies of George W. Bush and other Republicans.
with the edit summary: Undue weight, and not in citation given.
One sentence about a $900,000 campaign contribution hardly seems like undue weight, but as for the citation, here is what the source (Covert Operations by Jane Mayer) says:
During the 2000 election campaign, Koch Industries spent some nine hundred thousand dollars to support the candidacies of George W. Bush and other Republicans.

Rubin, do you have any excuse for making this false statement, "not in citation given"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The New Yorker doesn't provide the article on one web page, so I probably missed it. However, it's clearly undue weight because Koch Industries spent a significant amount of money to support the candidacies of Democrats in that campaign; I found at least $100,000; much less than the alleged $900,000, but my scan of the official documents produced about $500,000 on Republicans and $100,000 on Democrats. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that if you have information about contributions to Democratic candidates you add something like "Koch Industries also contributed $______ to ______" with a citation including a LINK, to the article. We cannot take your word for what you "found" in "official documents" --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)