Talk:Peabody Energy Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

First post[edit]

Awesome additions but I have been watching this close and have removed some redlinks but now it's sort of turning towards some giant ad. I'm going to add a <pov> tag and see if someone can clear this up. Binarypower 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the content that I added?! MrPeabodyEnergy 02:44, 07 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was contaminated with copyright-infringing information by (talk · contribs). Content in Wikipedia must be licenced under the GFDL; this was just a cut'and'paste from the company's website. It's okay to add information based on Peabody's website (although it's best to check facts from an independent source too, as the subject of an article will inevitably only say nice things about themselves), but not to copy text or pictures from there. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I just added a header for this section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial History[edit]

How is it that this article perports to offer the history of Peabody Coal company and yet has no mention of the dozens of times that Peabody Coal has used it's money and power to oppress it's own workers and stamp out dissent?

What about the times Peabody Energy has used its money and power to influence the University of Wyoming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The word strike does not appear once on the page, and yet the history of Peabody Coal is a history of labor conflict and strike breaking. Is this the result of a company managing the telling of it's own history? And while there is a reference to the song Paradise, there is zero critical analysis of why "Mr. Peabody's coal train hauled it away."

How does one put the little flag that says this is debated information? Or reads like an advertisement? --Rico 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Added unbalanced tag as the extensive century-long conflict and controversy of the Peabody Coal Company is not discussed on this page, and the addtions to the talk section have remained unanswered.
Thank you. Now does someone with a greater or more local grasp of the history here care to add some historical context to this web brochure for Peabody Energy Company? A good start would be with these pages:
Sourcing would be a challenge, but doable. Thanks in advance to someone willing to take on this task. --Rico (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to history and recent developments section[edit]

Hi, I have made a minor edit to this article in the form of adding a citation. Addressing the flag posted at the top of this article, I’m proposing revisions to the history and recent developments sections that would provide a more comprehensive synopsis of this company’s history, better aligned with Wikipedia’s encyclopedic content standards.

Though I’m not employed by Peabody Energy, I do have a background in the energy industry and want to make others aware of this and will be careful to ensure a neutral point of view. Accordingly, I’ll be sure to post to the talk page before moving forward with any edits in order to gain consensus on any substantive changes.

Please take a look at my proposed revisions to the history section in a sandbox on my user page and let me know what you think or feel free to make direct changes to the sandbox draft. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your feedback. JamesClyde (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Let's tweak the very last sentence to make it more neutral. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Hroðulf; given the feedback from you as well as on the Help desk at I have gone ahead and implemented these revisions in the article - with the exception of the very last sentence, based on your recommendation above. I omitted the last sentence for now, with the intention of doing some additional research and proposing a rephrased version here later today. If there are any additional thoughts about these revisions please feel free to comment here or on my talk page. Thanks! JamesClyde (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hroðulf, per your request, I have rephrased the last sentence from my original draft of the history of the section so that it now reads, “At the 2010 World Energy Congress, Peabody CEO Gregory Boyce proposed a plan that advocated for the expanded use of coal worldwide, placing emphasis on geographic areas with limited or no access to electricity.” Please let me know what you think and I’ll update the section accordingly. Thanks again! JamesClyde (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks better. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I had some additional updates I thought would be beneficial to the history section. The most significant addition is a couple sentences in the current era subsection on the Prairie State Energy Campus. Anyways I thought it would be easiest for other editors to review the material if I included my revised version of the section in the collapsible box below. In the hopes of attaining consensus, please feel free to comment on or make changes to this draft. JamesClyde (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and implemented the revisions discussed above after receiving feedback from another editor on the WikiProject Missouri's talk page and allowing time for other editors to weigh in. As always, I welcome any further feedback on this content. JamesClyde (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Areas of business section[edit]

This article lacks a section explaining the geographic areas of operations, and after looking over and drawing from the BAE Systems article (based on it being a FA), I’m proposing adding this brief section, titled "Areas of business," to the article that would go directly below the History section. I encourage other editors to take a look at it and give me feedback or make changes directly to the draft itself. Thanks for your time! JamesClyde (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to follow up on my earlier comment after implementing the revisions proposed above that I felt were non-controversial in nature and would make logical sense to go directly after the History section. I also implemented the minor, one sentence, revision discussed in the section above. As always, I’m open to any further suggestions or thoughts on a better place for the Areas of business section. Thanks! JamesClyde (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor updates[edit]

I've proposed some minor revisions to this section that simply note Peabody has opened offices in Balikpapan and Essen and updated the citations acordingly. Though I do not consider these revisions to be controversial, as I have a WP:COI with this article, I've included a draft with my changes in it below so other editors can review the material and weigh in if they have any comments, questions, or objections. JamesClyde (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not having received any feedback and believing these revisions to be well sourced and noncontroversial, I've gone ahead and added Essen and Balikpapan to the list of international offices and updated the corresponding citations. Please feel free to comment if you have any thoughts or suggested changes. JamesClyde (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates to lede[edit]

Hi, I have proposed some revisions updating information in the lede section and adding a couple sentences providing a better overview of what Peabody Energy does. This draft is included in the collapsible box below. Though I don’t consider these revisions to be controversial as they are largely updating outdated information, I was hoping to get feedback from the community on these revisions before implementing them. If anyone has any thoughts or recommended changes to this draft please feel free to comment on or revise the proposed content. JamesClyde (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not having received any feedback over the last week, I have gone ahead and implemented the revision discussed above. If there are any thoughts, questions, or recommended changes to this material please feel free to comment here or on my talk page. JamesClyde (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Black Mesa controversy[edit]

Hi, I had some revisions to this, section the most significant of which were the addition of a couple of sentences at the end noting that the Black Mesa Mine had recently been decommissioned. I also noticed that the only source cited in this section is a critical piece from the Phoenix New Times and added some additional substantiation from the Associated Press and the Funding Universe company history profile. I have included this proposed draft in the collapsible box below.

I realize this is a controversial issue and as I have a WP:COI with this article (see my user page), I will not move forward with any revisions to this section without first receiving feedback from third parties. In the hopes of gaining WP:CONSENSUS, please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts, suggestions, or changes to this material.

Thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see editors with specialized knowledge contributing, particularly when they take care to avoid any taint of WP:COI. All the material in the proposed draft seems to be soundly referenced, and good to go! May only demur would be the best place for the addition: The WP:SS guideline suggests that it might best be added to the subsidiary article Black Mesa Peabody Coal controversy, rather than here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Old Moonraker. I've added the material to the Black Mesa controversy section for now, but will look at incorporating or transferring some of it into the Black Mesa Peabody Coal controversy article according to WP:SS. Looking at both articles, it looks like material from the Black Mesa article was lifted and copied into the Peabody article by an editor that had been involved on that page. Anyways, thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Environmental track record and reference in song sections[edit]

I have some WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT concerns with these sections and have proposed a revised draft below of the sections incorporating them into one section titled Environmental record. Of specific concern are minor issues with the tone of some of the language and the fact that the sourcing in the first paragraph of the Environmental track record section only cites two flyers from the Sierra Club and the NRDC. It is also my opinion that while the reference in the song Paradise is worthy of mention, it is not worthy of its own section on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT.

My proposed draft retains the majority of the content and citations in the current draft, but modifies some of the language in a way that I felt was neutral in tone. I also added some material on Peabody’s reclamation efforts and recognition they have received on account of them. However, due to my WP:COI with this article and the fact that these issues are controversial, I will work to gain WP:CONSENSUS before moving forwardwith any revisions.

Thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your careful approach has demonstrated that you are editing impartially. Go straight ahead with your edits and WP:BRD will fix any problems. Go for it!
The phrase "Critics have expressed" may well attract a {{who}} tag unless they are specifically identified: the anonymous report from the Sierra Club expresses its opinion, but doesn't summarise those from other critics (but that was only from a skim read—sorry if I missed something). You might consider formatting that reference, to allow readers to assess the organization from the wikilink. In fact, it might be worth wikilinking all the named organizations with articles.
All the best.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for your feedback Old Moonraker. I changed the language of the sentence discussing critics, added the appropriate wikilinks, and reformatted the citations so it would be clear who the source was. I'll go ahead and implement the revisions in the spirit of WP:BRD, as you recommended, and then follow up on this page in case any other editors are interested in additional changes. JamesClyde (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and implemented the proposed draft discussed above. If anyone has any thoughts or changes, please feel free to let me know. Thanks for your time. JamesClyde (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request of Financial Information in Info Box[edit]

{{Request edit}}

Hi everyone,

First of all, I want to disclose up front that Peabody Energy is a client of my employer New Media Strategies, giving me a WP:COI. However any edits I suggest will adhere to Wikipedia policies.

I noticed in the info box that the financial information is out of date (it's from 2010) and it cites a website that is not a reliable source. I have the updated 2011 information that is sourced from Peabody's official 2011 10-k listed below. Can someone please update the information in the info box with the below numbers?

Revenue: $7.97 billion

Operating Income: $1.59 billion

Net Income: $946 million

Total Assets: $16.73 billion

Total Equity: $5.52 billion

Thanks. Namk48 (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You can make edits like this yourself. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I changed it correctly, and swapped the template at the top of this section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Canoe1967. My only concern is that it appears the link in the citations doesn't lead directly to the 10-k. Namk48 (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think it may be a java thingy. I left more detail on your talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I've responded with a new link on my talk page. Namk48 (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed unbalanced tag[edit]

I am removing the unbalanced tag from the article in good faith. It seems to me that either consensus has been reached, and there has been no further comments in a reasonable amount of time; or both.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Peabody Energy Resolves N.Y. Probe Into Climate Disclosures?[edit]

And so on William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a story in the Guardian today that Peabody Energy has been at the center of the climate change denial campaign:
The article may be seeing a series of posts regarding this topic. Praemonitus (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)