Talk:Koch, Inc.

contributions to democrats

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

... right Mr Rubin!

According to the Sunlight Foundation,

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

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

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

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

rvt

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

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

I've reverted the edit back.

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

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

Proposed change in article

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

According to the Sunlight Foundation,

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

and

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

and these tags removed

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

Issues

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

Edits

paragraph

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

According to the Sunlight Foundation,

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

(The other paragraph also cites the sunlight foundation.)

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

tags

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

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

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

comments

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's generally an improvement, provided

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and then followed by an example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partisan censorship?

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg.com potential resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Market Solutions

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

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

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

Undue weight of Environmental and safety record information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-praise

The article currently says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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