Talk:Koch Industries

Does this article need a criticism section?

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

For starters, observe this list of well-sourced controversies spawned via Koch Industries here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#2011_Bloomberg_Markets_Expos.C3.A9

1 2011 Bloomberg Markets Exposé

1.1 Bribery of Foreign Officials

1.2 Firing of Compliance Officer

1.3 Trading with Iran

1.4 Falsifying Benzene Emissions

1.5 Stealing Oil on Indian Reservations

1.6 Deadly Butane Explosion

1.7 The 'Koch Method'

2 Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

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

4 Koch Brothers' Fortune vs. Koch Industries' Employment

5 Affiliations and Funding of Interest Groups

5.1 Koch Family Foundations

5.2 Cato Institute

5.3 Americans for Prosperity

5.4 Tea Party Movement and Funding

6 Direct Lobbying and Campaign Contributions

6.1 Political Contributions

6.2 Lobbying

7 Koch Industries' Political Activities

7.1 Voting Advice to Employees

7.2 Koch strategy retreat, 2011

7.2.1 Attendees

7.2.1.1 June 2010 participants

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

7.3 Linked to union-busting efforts

7.3.1 In Wisconsin and nationally, 2011

7.4 Climate denial and delay

7.4.1 Fighting greenhouse gas regulations

7.4.1.1 Regional Climate Change Accords

7.4.1.1.1 New Hampshire

7.4.1.2 EPA, 2011

7.4.1.3 California, 2010

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

7.4.2 Other Koch funding

7.4.2.1 Koch-funded organizations

7.4.2.2 Organizations' messaging on "ClimateGate"

7.5 Tar Sands, 2011

7.6 Actions during and before the GW Bush administration

7.6.1 Lobbying

7.6.2 Pollution - Spills, fines and indictments

7.6.2.1 Off the hook after GWBush became president

7.6.2.1.1 Koch representation in Bush's cabinet

So, let's stop the whitewashing, add a criticism/controversy section and make this a respectable, encyclopedic article worthy of Wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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 all need to go forward with making an informative article with a NPOV and NOT a public relations piece for Koch Industries. If you fight adding a NPOV to this article you will be against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, you are not the arbiter of whether or not "the article has plenty of criticism"; That is up to consensus as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cowicide (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Currently the article has 49 lines which are critical - or about half of the entire article. What percentage of the article do you feel should be devoted to critical commentary? Collect (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't "critical commentary"... sorry, your newspeak doesn't work on me. It's adding notable, critical FACTS that are missing from this article. I'm not interested in adding opinion, just FACTS. Also, I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Article facts don't limit themselves on a percentage basis, it's about notability and accuracy. Otherwise, I suggest you go fix this article about Charlie Manson that has a high percentage of critical FACTS and see how far you get attempting to bend reality there. Do you feel a need to continue whitewashing this article? You should read this. And, with that, we should begin fixing this article and be transparent about it, ok? Cowicide (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's clear to me that there are a number of critical "facts" already in the article which aren't factual. Do you feel a need to continue blackwashing the article? As for your specifics:

• 1.1, 1.2, and 1.6 are covered in the article.
• 5, 6, and most of 7 would be appropriate in the "Political ..." article, and I seem to remember them being covered (beyond the point of verifiable facts). Enough of them are covered here to suggest that any further addition would be undue weight. Much of what you think should be in 7.4.2.1 is demonstrably false, even if stated in sourcewatch. Much of 7.6.2 is still here; I suspect more is here than should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If I was "blackwashing" the article as you suggest, then where are my edits on the article that do this? Show me or retract your false accusation, please. On the other hand, all one has to do is read through this Talk page and its archive to see evidence of whitewashing the article against truthful, well-sourced, critical information that Koch Industries obviously campaigns to neuter here. It's ridiculous that companies like Microsoft on Wikipedia have entire articles devoted to criticism, but strangely enough there's not even a comprehensive section here for such a notably controversial corporation. Instead there's strained, sporadic criticisms missing a large amount of factual content that's out there. It's time to stop this blatant whitewashing that's making this a weak article.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that wikipedia shouldn't duplicate the partisan sourcewatch wiki (operated by the Center for Media and Democracy which is obviously a progressive organization) word for word. And, I also agree that everything in that list isn't notable, but what I hope is that editors who respect NPOV will look through that list and add what is notable and factual. That's why I added that info to the Talk page and not into the article itself. Cowicide (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that you had been blackwashing the article. I should have said "continue the blackwashing of the article", implying that there had been blackwashing, and you wanted to continue or expand it. And I agree that the blackwashing of the article can easily be seen by looking at the talk page and archives. As for sourcewatch, consensus is that only the reporting on contributions, extracted from official documents, is reliable. (Although, in some cases, what is said there is covered by reliable sources. In a few cases, even what is covered by reliable sources, such as 7.4.2.1, is clearly, objectively, false.) Most of point 6 (reliable), and more than is truthful from 7, is in the associated political activities of the Koch brothers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Blackwashing attempts of the article have been thwarted up to this point and I commend you and others for helping against that. While we must all be diligent to protect the article from blackwashing from biased parties whose only goal is to put the company in a bad light (as apposed to telling the notable truth); We must also be diligent to protect the article from whitewashing from biased parties whose goal is to put the company in a good light (as apposed to telling the notable truth).

Hopefully you will work with me to achieve these goals. As you know, my goal is to fix an article that has been whitewashed and I know that you are a Libertarian who wants to protect the company from a blackwash. I appreciate that you are upfront about being a Libertarian on your User Page so we have some transparency. All one has to do is look at my Talk page to see my positions and what I'm sure some will perceive as my foibles. You seem like a reasonable person, so hopefully together we can fix this whitewashing that has harmed the quality of this article while at the same time avoiding unsourced criticisms that will harm this article in the other direction.

One of the reasons this article's quality suffers is its glaring lack of a distinctive criticisms section. I was shocked when I came to this article and couldn't find one. Koch Industries is an unarguably controversial company and doesn't have a specific controversy section (or page) as it should (per wikipedia guidelines) when so many other companies on Wikipedia do. Case and point: Microsoft , Walmart , Target , Whole Foods and as you should know as a seasoned editor that list goes on and on. How do you explain this glaring omission of such a controversial company on Wikipedia? It's been whitewashed. Whether it's been from good intentions or not, it needs to be fixed.

When you say "7.4.2.1, is clearly, objectively, false.", what is specifically false in that section? Please provide your reliable sources and proof to back up your statement. I also see where you deleted my edit without discussing it with me first. As per wikipedia guidelines, I have reverted it back until we discuss your actions and reach consensus. My edit was properly sourced, notable and put into a proper section (Environmental and safety record). What better place to put their environmental record than within the environmental record section? Then again, if there was a proper criticism section (or page) that wasn't whitewashed off this article, I could have placed it there as well. Cowicide (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONTROVERSY suggests that there shouldn't be a criticism section, but I see it's observed more in the breach than as a guideline.

As for "objectively false", sourcewatch, among others, has assumed that if Koch founded and funded A, and B has spun-off from A, then Koch "founded" and "funded" B. This is absolutely wrong, in the case of FreedomWorks, for example. If you (and sourcewatch) ignore spinoffs, and determine which organizations the Kochs were funding while they were active, then the associations may be listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I also already addressed the wikipedia guidelines above where it makes it clear that organizations and corporations that are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism, can and should have a criticism section or page. Also this: "... In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material. ... ". Are you trying to deny this reality for Koch Industries? Cowicide (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am Amadscientist a volunteer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and the Wikipedia:Teahouse. There is actually a policy (not a gudeline or an essay) in regards to sections containing praise or criticism. WP:WEIGHT states:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Because this article also deals with the Koch brothers as a BLP (Biography of living persons) we have some very strict policies in regards to both praise and critcism that go even farther:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I urge editors to work together to edit this article in a disinterested manner and NOT add controversy, critcism or praise sections as they are not neutral. However, you cannot keep all critcism off this article (any more than keeping off legitimate positive content) as that is also a major neutrality issue. All content must begin with a reliable source and be accurate and agreed upon by all editors. If there is legitimate content someone feels is being kept out for reasons other than our guidelines, policies and consensus, please request comment from a larger pool of contributers for a broader consensus. Remember that a local consensus can NEVER override the broader general community. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As an addendum to what you wrote, special sections (and sub-articles) can sometimes be justifiable per WP:SUMMARY and WP:CORG, if a subject's controversies are voluminous and independently notable.   — C M B J   12:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding certain edits

Aurther, I'm going to go ahead and ask for some help with this from others. Please do NOT delete entire sections of my edits again without discussion or I will consider it whitewashing and/or vandalism of this article. If you dispute the neutrality of the section, feel free to add a tag to it and let's iron it out here. Nuking everything I worked on isn't going to cut it. The sad thing is while you blanket deleted all my edits, I was working on trying to appease you with the last part. How about working WITH me instead of trying to start an edit war? Please also read my response to you in the section above if you want to further question my good faith while undermining a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete it; it was Arzel (talk · contribs). I don't think it belongs there, per previous consensus, but I only tagged it as {{primary-source-inline}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me it was Arzel and not yourself engaging in the edit war. I will issue Arzel a warning on Arzel's Talk page since you didn't. I will address the primary-source issue promptly. I apologize for the confusion. Cowicide (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You should check yourself Cowicide. Do you even know what an edit war is? No go remove your false warning from my page. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, the "blanket deleter" without discussion...? Indeed, it is you that's needs to check oneself. And you just did it yet again. You could have discussed this first with me, but instead you declare yourself the authority and delete it first. Actually, you've now crossed the line. Taking out the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute top 10 polluter information while blatantly leaving the Heartland Institute's "environmental awards" that I placed right next to it shows your absolute bias against even attempting to work on this being a fair and balanced article. How does that work, Arzel? Anything positive of Koch Industries is OK? Anything critical not OK? Wikipedia doesn't work like that.

You can't blanket delete the entire The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute information which is NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE while leaving the Heartland Institute awards in place without being blatantly biased. You have a history of being overly biased and overly protective of Koch Industries. It's time for you to step away and remove yourself from this article. Unlike you, I've made edits that are BOTH critical AND positive of Koch Industries. Unlike you, I've added NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE info to the article while you very selectively slash and burn things you think are negative while not even touching upon the positive. You're acting like a cheerleader for Koch Industries and it's time for you to step aside. If you have further VALID issues with the NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute information, then tag the section with a NPOV tag and let's iron it out here first to work on the wording, etc.

By the way, did you even LOOK at the Heartland Institute info I put there? It's from a biased, libertarian think tank to help balance out a University and you don't even BLINK at it. I'm putting the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute back in place because the Heartland Institute MORE than balances it out. If you have an issue with the University, then you got to also have an issue with the Heartland Institute being there. That is, unless you're biased and only want biased edits. Cowicide (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute is biased, as well. Just because you agree with their bias is no reason that it shouldn't be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, the cat's out of the bag. Biased as well? If they are both biased then why are you ok with the removal of the one (that's critical of Koch Industries) while it's perfectly OK to leave the other one (that's postive of Koch Industries)? You're supporting a blatantly biased edit and now you're wallowing in it. Once again, as I said with the edit's comment and above. The UofM Institute is balanced by the Heartland Institute and you just confirmed that with your own words. You can't have it both ways. It's obvious your libertarian leanings is clouding your judgement. I put in a critical Institute it should get removed. I put in a positive Institute and it gets a pass. That's not how Wikipedia works. Why not take a critical, closer look at the Heartland Institute's information? It's time to bring third party users and administrators to come take a look at what's going on here. STOP the whitewashing, please. Cowicide (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy now? I removed both. The difference is you are here to push your activism, while I simply didn't read everything you added and only removed the section which had been earlier discussed with no concensus for inclusion. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, you're the one acting like a libertarian activist around here who professes your biased disdain for Koch criticism. Unlike you, I put BOTH positive and negative info in the article. It's you that ignores the positive bias unless I bring it up. So now you just delete both because you can't have it your way and have ONLY the negative? This isn't how Wikipedia works. I'm currently in the process of bringing in disinterested third parties. Hopefully they'll be here soon with their input and we can reach consensus on what to do next. I will hold off on any further editing until there's further input from disinterested third parties. That is, unless you blanket delete entire sections again because of your biases and I will revert it and report you to administrators. Cowicide (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It would help if we could have a listing of the particular items that "ought" or "ought not" be in the article. And as part of the listing it would help to have rationale that justifies inclusion or exclusion of each item. The discussion above is not helpful and seems to be going in circles. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about all the issues, but the Mass Amherst study was discussed earlier and there was no concensus for inclusion. Basically, because of the way the study was done and the lack of much in the way of reliable sources making anything of it, it was viewed as POV and would require quite a bit of text to put the study into context. Since the study did not take into account industry size, it basically lists the largest companies as the largest polluters. When put into context of largest polluters in a single plant they don't make their list. The focus on Koch appears to be solely political as well (because of the Koch connection to libertarian causes, of which this current flareup is a perfect example) as other companies, like Bayer (#1), have no such focus from this report. This issue is simply not large enough to warrent inclusion and all of the other context required to maintain a NPOV. Arzel (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible WP:CANVASSING

Language in the nature of

I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance

when canvassing for additional editors is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS as it is absolutely not "neutral" as is required by that behavioural guideline. Posts made in response to such campaigning may be ignored by any admin closing any such discussion as violative of previous ArbCom statements (WP:False consensus). Collect (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's very selective editing there, Collect. You strangely forgot the part where I asked for disinterested third parties and my goal to make the article more informative and encyclopedic. What are you afraid of? True consensus instead of your little biased meatpuppet libertarian party? And, your worst nightmare? Cowicide (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a stern warning to begin heeding WP:CIVIL; you're attacking everyone else in this discussion on top of canvassing. If you continue, you should expect to be blocked for general disruption. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How about a stern warning for all the biased whitewashing of this article as well? It's interesting how a conservative has come running here to assist the libertarians. I've got a stern warning for you. Help stop the POV edits or be a part of the problem. Maybe I ask how were YOU contacted to come here and by whom? Transparency, please? Cowicide (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the damn edit history of the article for g-d's sake! Your m.o. of accusing everyone else of COI, POV, Tagteaming, and any sin you can imagine is tiresome to the nth degree now. For an example of my "POV" look at my edits on Carmen Ortiz and try to reconcile them with your broad accusations. And I would, of I were less civil, tell you precisely what to do with your "stern warning" (noting the nautical definition of "stern"). Collect (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I disagree with Nyttend about this being canvassing and I would warn EVERYONE to start using civility here and work together before this article is locked from all editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read how the posts were worded? And you can honestly state that those posts were "worded neutrally" as is required by the guideline? Really?????? 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Clearly "Campaigning" based on the wording. From WP:CANVASS Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. Arzel (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the topic itself was presented in a non-nuetral manner....if you feel strongly and feel you are accurate, use the notice boards. All this is is uncivil fighting and conflict right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I read it, since it was sent to me. I'll point out a few things. The note states that he doesn't care if anyone is a particular political affiliation, even me. Please don't confuse campaigning with canvassing. They are two seperate issues. If you feel that the editor has stepped over a line, you may use the Admin notice boards. Until then, these are accusations discussing the contributer and not the contribution. And I am more than familiar with the group of editors here and the way they can sometimes create as much drama as they accuse others of. Either work together or step back. And I mean this to everyone. I don't agree with Cowicide about adding a controversy section, but they are not the only one that can be accused of not working in an appropraite manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeez! I pointed out to Cowicide how the message in his posting was inappropriate. S/He responded with a less than receptive remark. (Please see his/her talk page.) I regret that a separate section about his/her behavior had to develop – I thought my templates would fix the problem, but I was wrong. Amadscientist, would you be so kind as to hat or collapse this section? Maybe we can then get back to addressing specific edits that should or should not be made in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate for me to close the section as an involved party, but agree with the closing should any non-involved party wish to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

An alternative perspective

Despite the above mess, and as someone uninvolved, I would like to advocate a different position: that there is a real need to improve our coverage of criticisms and controversies surrounding all things Koch. Some such topics are attributable to a specific Koch entity, but many of them involve overlapping interests, agendas, activities, and critiquing of the Koch brothers, Koch family foundations, KochPAC, Koch Industries, as well as other related groups. This is a broader problem that needs to be addressed from an encyclopedic perspective.   — C M B J   06:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not to forget Political activities of the Koch brothers, which is probably where most of this stuff ought to be concentrated. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's actually my first link.   — C M B J   00:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've just pointed out to Cowicide that pursuing proper channels of dispute resolution would be a much better way to go about addressing the perceived issues here. I would suggest that either WP:DRN or an WP:RFC right here would be good ways to move forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Before you start asking for DR/N, why not try to work together. The best practice is to discuss on the talk page and work out a compromise. You may use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard at any time, however, working together is always better than conflict.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Political activities section

The POV and off-topic tags were removed from the political activities section, saying that it is neutral now (diff), but I don't see that any changes have been made to the section. Any thoughts on how to improve its neutrality/straying issues? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Took a swing at it, though there's still an inline context tag I'm not sure how to handle. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

include Koch Carbon

Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David H. Koch.

• A Black Mound of Canadian Oil Waste Is Rising Over Detroit May 17, 2013 New York Times

99.119.129.121 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A company wich takes waste from petroleum ptoduction and sells it to Europe as fuel - preventing its accumulation in Canada. Green. Collect (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

http://kochcarbon.com/Default.aspx. 135.209.239.206 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It says "affiliate"; that's not the same thing, and that article is an inappropriate source for what you say it says. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, after some checking, I think that affiliate may be the similar to subsidiary. An affiliate may be a subsidiary if the primary company has 51%+ ownership in the other company. It is not clear if that is the case here, but it is possible that Koch Carbon is a subsidiary of Koch Industries. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. What I meant to say is that the NYT article was being used by a number of the socks of the IP, on a number of different articles, to support something it didn't say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(Od)

Koch Carbon is controlled by Charles and David H. Koch.

12.204.129.45 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevance? (You're clearly the sock of an already blocked IP, but I choose to accept your comment as not being disruptive.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Does Koch have an insider at Wikipedia?

While I am not saying they do, the speed in which edits are deleted is remarkable. They will accept as fact articles by less than reputable sources such as Newsmax and Weekly Standard, and not real news sources. (IP)

When material is added which is already in the article, it is highly likely that the repeated material will be removed. This is known as "following Wikipedia policies and guidelines." You will, moreover, learn that accusing experienced editors of being paid for in any way is a sure and quick way to the exit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am just saying I have posted from reputable sources, and they have been deleted, and NEWSMAX and The Weekly Standard sources are cited and allowed in as fact. If I put in a Huff Post citation, would that stand as a fact? (IP)

Please note: WE DO NOT LIST THE SAME CLAIMS TWICE IN SUCCESSION IN A SECTION. Is this actually clear? I dislike using all caps, but I fear you may need them. Collect (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been civil to you Collect, please do not be condescending to me. I am more than willing to have a civil, even spirited debate. All I ask is to point out what I need to do to improve my post. If we can start over, I am more than willing to resume a civil discourse. Thanks I will also point out that I am looking into an article that uses Mother Jones as a source, and see whether they are using it to bolster an argument with a statement of fact, or simply quoting a statement. My best!

• Yeah Collect, careful with your words; you'll get blocked before you know it. Pointing out that putting duplicate information in an article is silly is probably a kind of oppression. Eh, IP editor, I cain't read very well, but even I don't need the same information (known carcinogen, $20 million fine, etc) in consecutive paragraphs. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenpeace "expose"?

An IP is repeated adding the following material:

On August 14, 2011, Greenpeace published an expose titled "Toxic Koch: Keeping Americans at risk of a Poison Gas Disaster," in which Phil Radford stated that “Koch Industries [played a] leading role in blocking comprehensive chemical security legislation in Congress.”

It needs a reliable source. Greenpeace is not a reliable source except for its own opinions, and its opinions in this instance appear not to be important enough for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

US Government shutdown of 2013

Can someone put in a section on Koch Industries' links to the US government shutdown in 2013. Company has issued a letter on the issue, so a section on this would help people from outside the USA, to understand what has been happening.