Talk:Koch, Inc.

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)

To answer your question, we know that they hired New Media Strategies in 2010 to work on the Wikipedia. The editor, WWB (talk · contribs), using the name NMS Bill (talk · contribs) was conscientious and followed policy, and recommended changes rather than making changes directly. Acting as a paid representative, he recommended adding a subsection to the environmental record section extolling the awards that Koch Industries has received. I didn't dig around to see how long that text remained intact, but there have been similar (sometimes somewhat excessive) additions, which were subsequently removed. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the removal, which was clearly against Wikipedia policy. If the undue comments about the environmental failures are to be reported, so should the environmental awards, even if suggested by a PR man. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 4 November 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.112.230 (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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.