Talk:Koch, Inc.

Env and safety section passage removed

I deleted the text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tea Party categorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminated!!!

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

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

IPA

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

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

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

Koch Brothers Exposed

I'm opening this section for discussion about the Koch Brothers Exposed 'see also' link. It certainly follows guidelines, and would seem to be useful to our readers. I would like to better understand the objections of those who wish to omit this link.- MrX 18:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Is now linked in every article remotely connected to the Kochs. The purpose of "see also" is to provide material reasonably salient to the topic of the article, and not for linkspam. [1]

Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section applies. The link is "tangentially related" to the brothers individually, but the link to Koch Industries is a very long stretch. Collect (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This wikilink is actually long overdue here. The documentary clearly shows a direct, conflict of interest, link between the company Koch Industries and the political activities against situations that might hinder their operations. There is no stretch here at all. Trackinfo (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a notable documentary. It should be linked from every article about the Koch brothers and Koch Industries, and possibly also the Koch Family, either in the body text or in the see also section. Koch Industries has certainly taken note of the film. The beauty of a web-based encyclopedia versus a printed encyclopedia is the ability to hyperlink related topics. Why should we try to hide this one from our readers?- MrX 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Koch "Internal Financing" in Luxemborg

I don't have the skills to edit. I do want to post the following article so that someone else might consider adding an edit. Leerylife (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/video/2014/dec/09/koch-industries-internal-bank-switzerland-video

Appears to be an "investigative editorial", but, alas, give no actual sources for claims as to amounts etc. and laces the whole commentary with "The Koch's are evil people who are buying off the US with ads". Collect (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal and Regulatory Events Removed

Hat extended copy of reverted edit. --Capitalismojo (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Legal and Regulatory Events In 1980, Koch Industries pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud, and four other felonies, in federal court. In 1989, Senate Report 101-216 found that Koch Oil "was engaged in a widespread and sophisticated scheme to steal crude oil from Indians and others through fraudulent mismeasuring and reporting." In 1999, a civil jury found Koch Industries "guilty of negligence and malice" in response to allegations of "negligence and coverup" related to a fatal pipeline explosion in 1996. In 2000, the US Environmental Protection Agency assessed what was "the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal environmental law" against Koch Industries. The fine reflected the companies "egregious violations of the Clean Water Act," which resulted in more than 300 oil spills and released more than one quarter as much oil as the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Also in 2000, Koch Petroleum Group was required to pay a $6 million criminal fine and $2 million in remediation costs related to violations of the Clean Water Act, after it "negligently discharged aviation fuel into a wetland and an adjoining waterway." In 2001, Koch Petroleum Group pled guilty to "covering up environmental violations." The United States Department of Justice agreed to a plea that involved the company paying "$10 million in criminal fines and $10 million for special projects to improve the environment in Corpus Christi." In 2002, KoSa, a Koch-affiliated joint-venture, agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $28.5 million criminal fine for "participating in a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate customers." In 2009, Koch subsidiary Invista agreed to "pay a $1.7 million civil penalty and spend up to an estimated $500 million to correct self-reported environmental violations discovered at its facilities in seven states" as part of a settlement with the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In 2014, the "EPA [found Koch-subsidiary] KCBX to be in violation of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., and the Illinois State Implementation Plan, at its Chicago, Illinois facility." In 2015, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange fined Koch Supply and Trading for making an improper trade and violating Exchange Rules 526 and 526.F.

User:capitalismojo reverted the addition of the section above in its entirety, citing "from primary sources". However, the reference from the first item is a secondary source, namely the Rolling Stone article entitled "Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire". Also, the fatal pipeline verdict was referenced in a CBS News article. We can change the remaining citations to the following article on Daily Kos, which was the original secondary source for all but the 2015 CME fine. A secondary source for that report was a tweet from an Agriculture reporter at the Wall Street Journal.

Koch Industries' legal and regulatory events are noteworthy additions to the history of Koch Industries. It would be hard to argue that the company's guilty plea to conspiracy to commit fraud, as reported in Rolling Stone, is not worthy of mention as part of the company's history. Similarly, a CBS News report regarding the company being found "guilty of negligence and malice" in a civil wrongful death suit clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. Especially given that the subsequent text of the article downplays the veracity of other media reports questioning Koch's ethics and illicit behavior, it is imperative that the above be included to preserve a sense of neutrality and balance in the article. Kochtruth (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a large number of issue with this proposed enormous edit. It contains straight copyright violations, Original Research from WP:Primary sources, and material from non-reliable sources (twitter, blogs etc.). I'd suggest trying to include material piece by piece after discussing here at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no copyright violations other than direct quotations (surrounded by quotation marks) from public domain source material (mostly US government press releases). It is hard to imagine a more reliable source for the information than the US government press releases and publications that announced the company's various guilty pleas. Casting aspersions by referencing "blogs and Twitter" doesn't change the fact that the primary source attributions are reliable (publications of the various US government agencies). The current article, as it stands, tries to downplay the allegations in various published secondary sources even as the primary source material is readily available and was part of this "enormous edit." As it reads today, the article looks like it was written by Koch Industries' PR department (and the edit history, in fact, shows IP addresses that reverse lookup to KochInd.com). Kochtruth (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Please be more specific. Please try to fix before you delete. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kochtruth: Thank you for your contribution. The article is grossly non-neutral with respect to reliable sources on a number of fronts, not least problematic the coverage of the subject's regulatory record. May I suggest this initial contribution, a series of one-sentence paragraphs, serve as an outline, and supplemented with secondary and tertiary sources for noteworthiness, each sentence expanded to a paragraph. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)