Talk:Koch, Inc.

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)

I can't disagree. Please let me know if you'd like to make the cut or would prefer that I do it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what is a "stewardship award"? Perhaps it doesn't belong here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather think it is being a "steward" of the Earth -- that is - a general term for "Green awards". The context certainly implies that. Collect (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The phrase you're looking for is "environmental stewardship". But the problem remains: it's been unreliably sourced for a couple of months now. If we can't source it, it has to go. Remember, verifiability, not truth. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(To 125's question above) Sure, I don't mind making the edit. I'll wait a bit first though, to see if anyone has a good response for why the section should stay. To be clear, I would also remove the statement about Koch Nitrogen based on the same reasoning (sub-national, non-notable). Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Call me "Still". I'm fine with waiting. Give them their chance. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-off-topic - that's the point. If there exists a good response, then I want to know what it is (so that the encyclopedia will end up better off), and a short wait may get someone to produce it. :-) It's the same as doing science - it's more important to arrive at the right answer (if your answer isn't the right one) even if you have to change your opinion to do so. Link. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. When I removed this section, I was told that I was being hasty, even though it had been tagged for months. Rather than edit-war, I'm content to sit here and wait for someone to provide a reliable source.

If they can, great, I've improved the article. If they can't, fine, I can go ahead and remove that section and nobody can complain that I'm being hasty. It's a no-lose situation, so long as I don't define winning in an egotistical way. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I hadn't checked the page history, so I didn't know about the edit war. I suppose I should be more definite then: if nobody makes a significant objection (with reasoning, of course) in the next ~3 days, I will remove the four statements which are not at the national level or higher. The final version would be as follows:

Environmental and safety record

From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries was assessed "more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments." Another source points out that Koch has had only "eight instances of alleged misconduct ... over the span of 63 years" despite being a giant multinational, and that this compares favorably to the fines, penalties and judgments accrued by the similarly large General Electric corporation.

Pollution and resource fines

In May 2001, Koch Industries paid $25 million to the federal government to settle a federal lawsuit that found the company had improperly taken more oil than it had paid for from federal and Indian land.

In 2010, Koch Industries was ranked 10th on the list of top US corporate air polluters, the "Toxic 100 Air Polluters", by the Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst. --Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

definately No to the last line. As one of the largest companies in the world this kind of statement is similar to the "one of the worlds largest nitrogen fertilizer supplier". The study does not take into consideration the size of the opperations, only the result, if it was adjusted for size of the company it would be far more useful. Ask yourself which is worse, a small company that pollutes a lot with respect to the size of the opperation, or a large company that pollutes a little over hundreds or thousands of sites? Arzel (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked the {{cite press release}} for the last sentence. Was the implication that the material is not reliable intentional or unintentional? In any case, the implication is there, and should either be explained, removed, or the sentence removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we find any other company articles which go to this extent in saying a company has been fined? I fear the material about the fines was entirely due to political considerations, and not to Koch being unuaually evil. For example, why not enumerate the companies with higher fines? Or better yet - why not list fines by value of company? A company worth only $1 billion with fines of $100 million is clearly less "evil" than one worth $100 billion with fines of $100 million, I would dare to say. Remove it all as being intrinsically POV if we keep the other companies unlisted, and especially if their articles do not have a corresponding claim ascribed to the same cite. Collect (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So most people want to remove even more? I suppose that's fine with me. A comment, though: I looked up the top 10 companies on that list, and a) most of them have at least some mention of fines and/or pollution in the articles, and b) Koch is one of the smaller companies on that list, at least measured by number of employees (which is the first measure of size that I thought of), so it's not clear that they would do better on a different list if one existed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

To Still - I said I would give three days, and it's been two. Nobody had objected (you can see the discussion above is based on removing more material, not less), so I don't see why you couldn't wait another day. Also, you didn't remove the Koch Nitrogen statement as I said I would, but placed it at the end of the preceding paragraph instead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What counts as three days depends on what time zone you're in. Regardless, there was no good reason for reverting it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was three days since my first statement (diff), but the relevant one (diff) was not until 47 hours before your edit. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and when I revert in 24 hours, is anything going to be different? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How about Arc does that himself. ViriiK (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Help me out here: How would it be different if Arc did it as opposed to if I did it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Because a) it's considered an extension of good faith to let others make edits that you are in favor of, b) people on these articles don't really trust you right now (whether or not it's justified, it's a statement of fact), and c) as I said above, you didn't actually make the same edit. Also, because I don't want to join anything even remotely resembling an edit war, if you edit again and are reverted again I will not subsequently make the edit myself. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, (b) goes against WP:AGF and the basic spirit of collegial editing. Reverting something based on the editor who made the change instead of the content is 'bad', in a word, despicable. ViriiK should be ashamed of himself for his actions.

As for (c), the only difference is that I kept a sentence that was already there. If that sentence was really a problem, then ViriiK could have removed just that sentence. As it was, he left it in when he reverted the changes that we all agreed upon. Frankly, this looks like (b) all over again.

Moving back to (a), I never had any objection to you making the change. I just object to the idea that you should be allowed to while I'm not. That's simply personal bias, and we should be better than that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I really suggest you strikethrough (or remove) some of those comments, especially "Reverting...actions." (Regardless of whether you think they're justified.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to set a good example regarding the assumption of good faith, I have done so. I would hate to be the black pot by being needlessly harsh. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Environmental and safety record (new section)

Okay, so I'm going to very carefully make the edit that I had previously proposed, and which has not been opposed for ~3 days from the time I said I would make the edit. (I assume that ViriiK's reversion of Still was on principle and not an objection.)

My reasoning is above, although there's a lot of other discussion there, so the relevant diffs are 1 2 3 4. Summary: I have removed the four statements in the "Environmental and Safety Record" section that are at the sub-national level, to get the version that I proposed in the third diff. Of course, I invite anyone to discuss if they would like.

A suggestion was made above that the Amherst study also be removed. I've left it in for now, as it wasn't part of my original proposal; my impression (as I said in the fourth diff) is that it could reasonably be retained, although of course I am open to being convinced. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others that the Amherst study should be removed. The study states, to get their rankings they “rate corporate performance in terms of (1) the total amount and toxicity of chemical releases; (2) the resulting pollution burdens, taking into account the number of people impacted; and (3) the extent to which these burdens fall disproportionately on low-income communities and people of color.” [1]

So the size of the companies, # of facilities, is not taken into account (I think # of facilities is a more practical measure of size than # of employees when looking at pollution rankings). Relative to the size, KI has done very well to minimize pollution. Look at the links to the data on the companies from the study. The top five ranked polluters on this list, Bayer, Exxon, Sunoco, E.I. du Pont, and ArcelorMittal have only 14, 52, 16, 59, and 21 facilities respectively. KI has 128 facilities. With so many you would expect to see a higher pollution score, but they have done well to minimize pollution and its effects, leading to a much lesser ranking than companies that are a fraction of their size.

We can’t add this context into the article because it would be called original research. The awards that were in the section helped to add context because they showed that KI was doing well to minimize pollution. Without the context, the study should be removed. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I saw that Arc mentioned "it's not clear that they would do better on a different list if one existed." I found this Pollution Ranking of the top 100 facilities ranked by "total environmental releases", and none of the KI facilities show up on the list. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Layoff notices if Obama elected

Well, apparently, I was wrong. The statement seems to be reported by a real news source. However, it's not just Koch; the real article at Yahoo! News lists 2 other companies. I'm not sure this is notable. Koch did something similar in 2010, and there are probably dozens of large companies that we can locate who did something like that in 2008. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused how this "layoff" bit is still on the page:

Koch Industries has also encouraged employees to vote for conservative candidates. In These Times Magazine reported that a political flyer sent to 45,000 employees of Koch Industries paper subsidiary Georgia-Pacific, urged the workers to vote for a list of Koch-endorsed candidates, including Mitt Romney. The voting information asserted:

If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.[58]

Koch Industries replied that

“As we regularly point out, Koch companies and Koch PAC support candidates based on their support for market-based policies and economic freedom, which benefits society as a whole. Our support is not based on party affiliation, and we support both Republicans and Democrats who support market-based policies and solutions.”[59]

Papa John's, Walmart, Denny's, Red Lobster, and Olive Garden (to name a few) did the same thing. Also, the source is In These Times... AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to Dems and GOP

It took Collect four minutes to delete this factoid from the article.

In the 2012 election Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has supported both Democrats and Republicans, though not in equal amounts. In the House of Representatives, for example, Democratic candidates have received $23,500 from Koch PAC while Republican candidates have been given $1.162 million.

... Alleging "this sort of editorialising does not benefit Wikipedia readers" in the edit summary.
I might point out the source of this information was the conservative business magazine/website Forbes, and the very tame statement of fact (In the 2012 election Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has supported both Democrats and Republicans, though not in equal amounts) was a toned down paraphrasing of this from the Forbes article:

Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has indeed supported Democrats this election, but only to the tune of $23,500, backing four Democrats in Congressional races (for the record: $10,000 to Georgia’s John Barrow, $2,000 to Oklahoma’s Dan Boren, $5,500 to Minnesota’s Collin Peterson and $6,000 to Arkansas’ Mike Ross).

By contrast, Koch PAC has spent $1.162 million on Republican candidates for the House, plus another $152,000 on GOP Senate hopefuls. FEC disclosures show that the Koch Industries group donated $25,000 to the the official Romney/Ryan fundraising committee in August, as well as $30,000 each to the National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and Republican National Committee.

...in response to the Koch industries statement:

"Our support is not based on party affiliation, and we support both Republicans and Democrats who support market-based policies and solutions". --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably a mistake. I put the informative text back.Sally Season (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a mistake and founded on Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

... So anyway I added the source of the example to satisfy Collect's complaint:("the wording "for example" is a clear sign that an editorial comment is going to be made in Wikipedia's voice. We do not do this.") --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is CLEARLY a victim of Koch Industry lackey whitewashing.

Why is there not a section devoted to criticism and/or controversy of Koch Industries like you see with most other highly controversial entities throughout Wikipedia?

For starters, observe this list of well-sourced controversies spawned via Kock Industries here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#2011_Bloomberg_Markets_Expos.C3.A9

1 2011 Bloomberg Markets Exposé

1.1 Bribery of Foreign Officials

1.2 Firing of Compliance Officer

1.3 Trading with Iran

1.4 Falsifying Benzene Emissions

1.5 Stealing Oil on Indian Reservations

1.6 Deadly Butane Explosion

1.7 The 'Koch Method'

2 Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

3 Business interests (Includes them being one of the United States' top 10 air polluters)

4 Koch Brothers' Fortune vs. Koch Industries' Employment

5 Affiliations and Funding of Interest Groups

5.1 Koch Family Foundations

5.2 Cato Institute

5.3 Americans for Prosperity

5.4 Tea Party Movement and Funding

6 Direct Lobbying and Campaign Contributions

6.1 Political Contributions

6.2 Lobbying

7 Koch Industries' Political Activities

7.1 Voting Advice to Employees

7.2 Koch strategy retreat, 2011

7.2.1 Attendees

7.2.1.1 June 2010 participants

7.2.1.2 Earlier guests included politicians and Supreme Court justices (Scalia & Thomas)

7.3 Linked to union-busting efforts

7.3.1 In Wisconsin and nationally, 2011

7.4 Climate denial and delay

7.4.1 Fighting greenhouse gas regulations

7.4.1.1 Regional Climate Change Accords

7.4.1.1.1 New Hampshire

7.4.1.2 EPA, 2011

7.4.1.3 California, 2010

7.4.1.3.1 Koch subsidiary donates $1 million to stop Calif. GHG law

7.4.2 Other Koch funding

7.4.2.1 Koch-funded organizations

7.4.2.2 Organizations' messaging on "ClimateGate"

7.5 Tar Sands, 2011

7.6 Actions during and before the GW Bush administration

7.6.1 Lobbying

7.6.2 Pollution - Spills, fines and indictments

7.6.2.1 Off the hook after GWBush became president

7.6.2.1.1 Koch representation in Bush's cabinet

So, let's stop the whitewashing, add a criticism/controversy section and make this a respectable, encyclopedic article worthy of Wikipedia.

Cowicide (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The article has plenty of criticism in it. Making any Wikipedia article into a hit piece, however, is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Stating facts about well-known controversies doesn't make an article a "hit piece". For example, there's no mention whatsoever of the controversial trading with Iran? That's a blaring omission in itself and further evidence of whitewashing. We need to go ahead and move forward with making this less of a public relations piece for Koch Industries and an actual, informative article. Cowicide (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)