Jump to content

Talk:Koch, Inc./Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
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.

In 1980, Koch Industries pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud, and four other felonies, in federal court.[1]

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."[2]

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.[3]

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.[4]

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."[5]

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."[6]

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."[7]

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.[8]

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."[9]

In 2015, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange fined Koch Supply and Trading for making an improper trade and violating Exchange Rules 526 and 526.F.[10]

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[11], 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.[12]

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)

References

  1. ^ Dickinson, Tim. "Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  2. ^ "Senate Report 101-216, A REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS". United States Senate. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  3. ^ "Blood and Oil". CBS News. CBS. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  4. ^ "KOCH INDUSTRIES TO PAY RECORD FINE FOR OIL SPILLS IN SIX STATES". EPA.gov. US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  5. ^ "KOCH PETROLEUM GROUP SENTENCED FOR MINNESOTA POLLUTION". EPA.gov. US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  6. ^ "KOCH PLEADS GUILTY TO COVERING UP ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS AT TEXAS OIL REFINERY". Justice.gov. US Department of Justice. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  7. ^ "COMPANY AGREES TO PLEAD GUILTY AND PAY $28.5 MILLION FINE FOR PARTICIPATING IN POLYESTER STAPLE CARTEL". Justice.gov. US Department of Justice. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  8. ^ "Invista to correct EPA violations". BizJournals.com. Wichita Business Journal. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  9. ^ "KCBX Notice of Violation - June 3, 2014". EPA.gov. US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  10. ^ "NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION". CMEGroup.com. Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  11. ^ "A Must-Read Timeline and Brief History of Koch Industries". DailyKos.com. Daily Kos. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  12. ^ "CME fines Koch Industries trading unit over improper trades". Twitter.com. Twitter. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
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)
Don't be absurd. Twitter? Really? and then taking links to legal documents and using them directly is an extremely poor sourcing idea. Was the legal action appealed, uphelp, thrown out? We don't know. Using agency press releases as primary is even worse per our PAG. (As veteran editors should know) Capitalismojo (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Below are proposed edits for the first three regulatory items, which can be individually discussed per Capitalismojo and reflect his concern about the quantity and veracity of secondary sources cited. We will continue to polish the remaining items for publication. Efforts were made to couple the primary source material with reliable secondary source citations for each claim. Legal documents will not be used as primary sources; only press releases announcing final settlements/guilty pleas and official US government reports will be included. Furthermore, these primary sources will be buttressed by independent secondary source accounts. Efforts will also be made to report the final disposition of any legal issues. We tried to follow the recommendation of HughD, building a descriptive, fully cited, paragraph around each fact. Once the individual items are accepted, we can form them into a larger outline.
First Item
As part of a lengthy investigative article, the Rolling Stone reported that Koch Industries pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud, and four other felonies, in federal court in 1980. The charges stemmed from the company's illegal use of straw buyers in a federal land lease lottery.[1] The company's lengthy retort, which Rolling Stone also published in its entirety, did not dispute the factual accuracy of this claim.[2]
The Rolling Stone is a reliable independent secondary source, and this article was widely circulated online. Even the company's own response to the article, which Rolling Stone subsequently published, did not dispute the factual accuracy of this account.
Second Item
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."[3] The Associated Press reported that Koch Industries' own records showed that it consistently ended years with more barrels of oil than it paid for, totaling roughly $31 million of excess oil between 1986 and 1988 alone.[4] These findings were subsequently cited in Federal False Claims Act lawsuit that Koch Industries reportedly settled for $25 million.[5]
The Associated Press report is featured on the website of the Los Angeles Times, and establishes the newsworthiness and veracity of the facts established in the Senate Report. Information about the final disposition of the lawsuit that was brought based on these findings was added.
Third Item
CBS News reported that, in 1999, a civil jury in the case of Smalley v. Koch Industries found Koch Industries "guilty of negligence and malice" in response to allegations of "negligence and coverup" related to a fatal pipeline explosion in 1996.[6] Bloomberg reported that the jury's $296 million verdict is "the largest compensatory damages judgment in a wrongful death case against a corporation in U.S. history."[7]. Koch Industries paid $3.5 million in punitive damages, the maximum amount allowed under Texas law, and appealed the $296 million verdict.[8] The Associated Press reported that the jury award was considerably more than the $100 million in damages sought by the plaintiff, and that the case was ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum.[9]
Additional secondary sources were provided to establish the newsworthiness of the case and its findings. Also, information about the historic nature of the jury verdict was added. VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Great start. So what we need now is some actual language to be inserted into the article with the proposed refs for that language. Lets start with item one. What is it you propose? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Below are the proposed language and the proposed refs for the first three items. Please suggest revisions on these items while we continue to build out the list.
Item 1
In 1980, Koch Industries pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud, and four other felonies, in federal court. The pleas related to the company’s illegal use of straw buyers in a federal land lease lottery.[10]
Item 2
In 1989, A Report of the Special Committee on Investigations of the [United States Senate] Select Committee on Indian Affairs concluded that Koch Oil intentionally stole crude oil by fraudulently mismeasuring the oil it was purchasing.[11] Koch Oil’s records showed that it ended each of the years between 1986 and 1988 with substantially more barrels of oil than it paid for—documenting roughly $31 million of excess oil.[12] Koch Industries settled a Federal False Claims Act lawsuit, for a reported $25 million, which was brought based on these facts.[13]
Item 3
In 1999, a civil jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice in conjunction with a fatal 1996 pipeline explosion.[14] The jury’s $296 million judgment, in Smalley v. Koch Industries, is the largest compensatory damages verdict in a corporate wrongful death case in the history of American jurisprudence[15], and was substantially higher than the $100 million sought by the plantiff[16]. Koch Industries paid $3.5 million in punitive damages, the maximum amount allowed under Texas law, and appealed the record $296 million verdict[17]. The case was ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum[16]. VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Item 1. Seems well ref'd.
Item 2. We shouldn't use the Senate Report. It's not needed we can use a secondary ref like [[1]] this from Bloomberg Business Week. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a better source. Below is a revised item 2 and proposed items 4 and 5:
Revised Item 2
In 1989, a United States Senate committee concluded that Koch Oil intentionally stole crude oil by fraudulently mismeasuring the oil it was purchasing.[18] Koch Oil’s records showed that it ended each of the years between 1986 and 1988 with substantially more barrels of oil than it paid for—documenting roughly $31 million of excess oil.[19] Koch Industries settled a Federal False Claims Act lawsuit, for a reported $25 million, which was brought based on these facts.[20]
Proposed Item 4 with new citations
In 2000, the US Environmental Protection Agency assessed what was the largest civil fine ever imposed under a federal environmental law, against Koch Industries. The $30 million fine was levied against the company as a consequence of its more than 300 oil spills in six states.[21] In aggregate, the spills caused more than 3 million gallons of crude oil to leak into ponds, lakes and coastal waters.[22]
Proposed Item 5 with new citation
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 admitted that it negligently discharged aviation fuel into a wetland and an adjoining waterway. This represented the largest Federal environmental fine levied in the state of Minnesota to that point.[23]
Proposed Item 6 with new citation
In 2001, Koch Petroleum Group pled guilty to falsifying a document and agreed to pay a $20 million fine, in exchange for the dropping of related environmental charges. The company was alleged to have concealed the release of 91 metric tons of the carcinogen benzene in Corpus Cristi--far more than the 6 metric tons that environmental laws permitted at the time.[24]
Proposed Item 7 with new citation
In 2002, KoSa, a Koch-affiliated joint-venture, agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $28.5 million criminal fine for conspiring to fix prices and allocate customers.[25]
Proposed Item 8 with existing secondary source citation
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 in seven states, as part of a settlement with the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This represented the largest settlement in the history of the EPA Audit program, which started in 1995.[26]
Please provide feedback on these items while we continue to rewrite and resource the remaining entries. VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Item 9 with new citations and elaboration
In 2014, the EPA found Koch-subsidiary KCBX, which had been storing uncovered piles of Petroleum coke in Chicago's southeast side, to be in violation of the Clean Air Act.[27]. The same facility was subsequently found to be in violation of the Clean Air Act again in April, 2015.[28]. KCBX's petcoke piles in Chicago have sparked protests[29] and complaints from community members, who allege that petcoke dust from the facility is a public nuisance and potential health hazard[30]. Such complaints regarding KCBX petcoke dust prompted at least two lawsuits that were filed by the Illinois Attorney General against KCBX.[31]
We propose that item 10 be removed due to it being immaterial (~$100k), and that the latest versions of items 1 through 9 be included in a section entitled "Key Legal and Regulatory Events" under "History", after "Koch Industries". Please let me know if you would like to propose any additional revisions to any of these items prior to our adding them to the Koch Industries main page. VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as no revisions were suggested or objections were raised, we are creating the Key Legal and Regulatory Events section and including the proposed items. VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
In one day? We haven't finished discussing these. Item two is not in line with the refs. Why do I say that? The Business Week article is later than the original Senate hearing. The US Attorney began an investigation, one that conluded with no indictment and no finding of "theft". Capitalismojo (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, what is your previous user name? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
As you might surmise, it was Kocktruth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
In regard content, the Daily Kos cannot be used as a source for an opinion or interpretation, but only for clear facts. I agree with Capitalismojo that it takes time to discuss this large a proposed edit; in addition, some of the material is already in the article with a less strident phrasing. Perhaps material associated with subsidiaries with their own section should go in the appropriate existing section, rather than the proposed new section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Capitalismojo, you are correct with respect to #2. Please see the proposed wording for #2 below, which attempts to balance the conclusions of the Senate report, the lack of criminal indictments, and the outcome of the civil Federal False Claims Act lawsuit. Please comment on the proposed wording for #2 and provide comments and/or revisions on each of the remaining items, individually.
Proposed revision for #2
In 1989, a United States Senate committee concluded that Koch Oil intentionally stole crude oil by fraudulently mismeasuring the oil it was purchasing.[32] Koch Oil’s records showed that it ended each of the years between 1986 and 1988 with substantially more barrels of oil than it paid for—documenting roughly $31 million of excess oil.[33] The investigation was referred to U.S. Attorney of Newark, who chose not to pursue a criminal indictment against Koch Industries in 1992.[32] However, Koch Industries settled a Federal False Claims Act lawsuit in 2001, for a reported $25 million, which was brought based on these facts.[34] The settlement came after a 1999 civil jury found that the company mismeasured the oil it was purchasing, consistent with the findings of the Senate report.[35]
With respect to Arthur Rubin's objection to Daily Kos; the latest version of the proposed edits did not use Daily Kos at all, nor did it use most of the primary source materials per Capitalismojo's objection. In my opinion, the legal and regulatory items should be consolidated into a single section in the company's history, as per the edits. There is already a History section that would be served well with a timeline of events. What would be the objective of breaking the unified timeline up across subsidiary sections, and leaving items out of overall chronological order? VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Already reported in the article:
  1. Koch Pipeline Company LP: 1996 pipeline explosion [item 3]
  2. Flint Hills Resources LP
    1. 1999 (announcement) negligent dumping of aviation fuel and illegal dumping of wastewarer (Rosemont, Minnesota) [item 5]
    2. 2000 (grand jury inditment) for "environmental crimes" near Corpus Cristi, Texas [probably item 6]
    3. 2003 illegal export to Canada
    4. 2006 "clean air act" violations in Alaska
  3. "Environmental and safety record" (with some overlap with the previous, making it misleading to include both)
    1. 1999-2003 $400M in fines [Bloomberg]
    2. 2000 alleged 300 separate violations (although few could be identified), settlement of $30M [item 4, with some inconsistent "facts"]
I see some duplication here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So, items 3, 4, 5, and 6 area already in the article, item 7 has marginal relevance even if sourced, item 2 is outdated (news article was before the conclusion of the hearing), and item 9 appears to be too new to be settled. There may be other overlaps between the proposed items and sections already in the text. That leaves 1 and 8 as possible improvements. Item 8 looks promising, although it appears to contradict some information on the same events in Invista#Environmental record. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


It appears we have consensus on item 1. While Arthur Rubin objects to item 2, the new proposed language is not outdated, as he suggests, and describes the resolution of both the criminal and civil matters in a balanced manner. The assertion that the Senate report is "outdated" because no indictments were returned, is incorrect. A more recent Senate committee investigative report on torture has its own dedicated page on Wikipedia despite the fact that a similar decision was reached not to bring indictments based on the report's findings. In addition, in Koch Industries' case, the subsequent jury verdict in the civil case was in line with the facts reported in the report. So long as a mention is made of the lack of criminal indictments (as in the most recent language), it is a fair treatment of the facts.
I contend that the existing language that Arthur Rubin cites as duplicating item 3 is among the most biased treatment of litigation in all of Wikipedia. It devotes an unjustifiable percentage of its verbiage to enumerating the company's defense, which was ultimately rejected by the jury in the case (and the jury's verdict was not overturned; the case was ultimately settled). Furthermore, it states a verdict of negligence while CBS News and other outlets reported a verdict of "negligence and malice." Finally, while it indicates the amount of the jury's compensatory damages verdict, it omits the noteworthy facts that the verdict was the largest such verdict in US history and far more than the amount sought by the plaintiff. Therefore, I contend that our short description of the outcome and noteworthiness of the case is better suited to an encyclopedic format, and a fairer treatment of the facts as interpreted by the jury.
The existing treatment of item 4 is also problematic. Again, a disproportionate share of verbiage enumerates the company's defense rather than sticking to the facts related to the enforcement action. In addition, the noteworthy and relevant fact that over 3 million gallons of oil were alleged to have been spilled was omitted. While Koch is entitled to "dispute the EPA figures," and even enter into a settlement without an admission of responsibility, balance and objectivity requires "equal time." We propose that the "over 3 million gallons of crude oil" figure be added to the existing language. In addition to the facts alleged in the settlement, it is notable that the company refused to disclose a map of its pipeline to the EPA, thereby preventing the agency from fully assessing the extent of the company's responsibility for the reported (and any additional) spills.[36] If those facts are appropriately added to rebut the company's defense, we will withdraw our language.
We accept the existing treatment of item 5 as identified by Arthur Rubin, and withdraw our proposal on that item.
For item 6, we will withdraw our proposal if the phrase "one count" in the existing langauge is amended to "one count of falsifying a document" with our citation, and the phrase "related to wastewater reporting it had self-reported to the government in 1995, according to the company" is removed. Again, there is no reason to rely on the company's interpretation of the facts given that more reliable independent secondary sources are available.
We maintain our proposed language for item 7 and dispute the claim of "marginal relevance." Koch Industries was a 50% shareholder in the KoSa joint-venture at the time of the misconduct and, at the time of this settlement, owned the entire company.[37] Bloomberg also reported on the Koch/KoSa connection, and the price fixing settlement, in the article cited by the existing Koch Industries Page ("Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Iran Sales").
Let's table item 8 for now. A fair treatment of the facts requires reconciling the historic magnitude of the settlement, and scope of the self-reported violations, with the existing language on the Invista page. We can save this one for last, as it will probably involve some debate.
Item 9 is clearly relevant and noteworthy. There has been extensive media coverage, both in the Chicago region and nationally, of the debate surrounding KCBX's storage of uncovered petcoke in Chicago. I would be open to moving this item, as written, to "Recent News" rather than "Key Legal and Regulatory Events". However, given the extensive coverage, inflamed passions of local residents, and the attorney general's lawsuits, it is difficult to argue that the facts do not merit inclusion. VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a summary of the latest proposed edits, which we will make, separately, tomorrow if there are no objections to that specific item:
1) Add the latest version of item 9 to the end of the "Recent News" section (instead of Legal and Regulatory, given that litigation is still ongoing).
2) Create a "Key Legal and Regulatory Events" section in the "History" section.
3) Add the latest language for item 1 (which it appears has consensus) to the new section
4) Add the latest language for item 2 to the new section (which is noteworthy and not duplicated in the existing article)
5) Add the latest language for item 3 in place of the existing language under Koch Pipeline Company LP. The first three sentences describing the explosion should be maintained. However, the content beginning with "An investigation..." would be replaced. In fact, the existing content is highly misleading. The NTSB report, itself, is available online[38] and the executive summary states explicitly that "the probable cause of this accident was the failure of Koch to adequately protect its pipeline from corrosion." The full report is available on that page and I would encourage those who object to form their own conclusions from the complete report.
6) Edit the existing discussion of the EPA settlement (item 4) to reflect that "over 3 million gallons of crude oil" were alleged to have been spilled.
7) Include the EPA's rebuttal to the company's defense (which is already in the article) that:
However, the company refused to disclose a map of pipeline to the EPA, thereby preventing the agency from assessing the extent of the company's responsibility for the reported spills, or to identify other spills attributable to the company.(with the proposed citation)
8) Change "one count" in the existing Corpus Cristi language under "Flint Hills Resources LP" to "one count of falsifying a document" and add the new citation
9) Remove the phrase "related to wastewater reporting...according to the company."
10) Add the latest language for item 7 (which is noteworthy and not duplicated in the existing article) to the new "Key Legal and Regulatory Events" section
VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with post above) Thanks to other editing involvements this article has come to my attention. I'm really not sure that any of this massive insert passes the WP:UNDUE standard. Bits and parts perhaps could be integrated but as a massive block, no. That isn't to say that the facts are in dispute but that given the length of the total article, this huge block of negative text focusing on the sort of legal issues that are common to very large organizations is hardly surprising. This puts way too much WP:WEIGHT on these topics. Perhaps my POV is skewed due to all the Koch and related attacks I've seen around here recently, but I would think this insertion reads as an attempt to blackwash rather than to better the encyclopedic entry. The current article seems like it has a reasonable breakdown of material for the total length. Since all large companies have their controversies it is worth including those in the article but not as a stand alone block. Also, I think we are past the point of BOLD inserts here. This material should probably be inserted bit at a time and with enough time for other editors to digest the changes. Springee (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee: I respectfully disagree. If you have specific constructive feedback on any of the changes, I would certainly be open to incorporating them into the proposed edits. However, the article, as it reads today, is biased and misleading. It disproportionately represents the company's point-of-view (i.e. WP:UNDUE on Smalley v Koch Industries and the EPA settlement), contains significant errors of omission (i.e. the criminal guilty pleas), and its brief length is, itself, a problem when compared to companies of similar size. Even you do not argue that the "facts are in dispute" regarding these edits; furthermore, the noteworthiness of these edits far exceeds that of information that is already included (i.e. it being one of 2,000 companies to adopt a particular health plan design). The way Wikipedia treats "other large companies" is instructive. The Bank Of America page, for example, contains a dedicated "Fraud" category in its History section describing the civil frauds it has been accused of. In contrast, the existing Koch Industries page does not even mention the criminal fraud that it pled guilty to. If, following this edit, you would like to fill out the Koch Industries profile with positive information that is noteworthy/newsworthy, objective, accurate, material, and meets the WP:UNDUE standard, I would be the first to thank you for those edits. One thing that might be helpful is a "Corporate Philanthropy" section similar to the "Charitable Efforts" section for Bank Of America.
This is an attempt to correct the record, given how incredibly biased the current entry is. As with Bank Of America, other "large company controversies" have been given their own block. Again, I am open to specific, constructive, feedback. However, all I have received to date is an attempt to completely shut down the discussion of our entire list of proposed changes. Furthermore, none of the editors who took issue with my edits have claimed that the existing language is more objective or balanced than the language that has been proposed.
VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree this should not be done without extensive discussion on each point, noting that, although I do not doubt {{u|Kochtruth{{ VertiasVincitUSA's good faith, I do doubt his/her neutrality, as he/she doubts mine. We need be sure neither to whitewash nor to blackwash this article. As to the current subpoints:
(2) Strongly disagree as (I don't remember the name of the guideline) opening a section for only negative comments. It's potentially acceptable on that point, if their notable legal wins and praise from regulatory organizations are added, but I don't think it's a good idea.
Oppose addition of any "balencing" (or "blackwashing") material for at least one week. The new editor's suggestions need to be given time; we have the problem that the government agencies "opposing" Koch Industry organizations, although generally reliable, must be considered as statements made by litigants, and so require third-party verification as to accuracy and notability. That means we need third-party sources which assert the facts, not just "the EPA claims that ....".
I strongly support summarizing Invista in the "INVISTA" section of the article. Whether the lawsuit and settlement (which has and deserves some space in Invista) belongs here is a separate issue). It might be better if "we" (Wikipedians, in general) brought these up one or two at a time for discussion — except point 2, which seems to violate guidelines.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I support AR's points above. I am not at all convinced that this article is radically one sided or imbalanced. That doesn't mean it can't be improved but we should really be honest if some of the proposed additions really deserve much if any WP:WEIGHT. AR is also correct about not adding a section that is basically a negative comments only section. The best course of action is to propose the material and give people sufficient time to review and then decide if it's worth adding and how best to add it. Springee (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin: you, and other editors, have accused me of not being objective but, to date, have not asserted one instance where the latest versions of the proposed edits were less objective than the existing article (which, as the examples I provided above show, is biased). I strongly support (2), and though I am new to Wikipedia, believe that the guideline you are referring to applies specifically to "criticism" (i.e. an expressed opinion of a book or movie) and not objective, but unflattering, facts (i.e. outcomes of legal cases). My proposed title for the new section is more neutral than those given to unflattering sections for other large companies, like Bank Of America ("Fraud"), JPMorgan Chase ("Controversies"), Walmart ("Criticism"), Monsanto ("Legal Actions and Controversies"), etc.
I am not averse to including the part of the flattering Invista "Environmental Record" section, related to their EPA settlement, that you refer to. However, balance also requires including the fact that the settlement involved paying a civil penalty, and proactively committing to invest up to $500 million to correct the environmental violations that were identified in seven states.(from our citation above)
With the exception of the second Clean Air Act violation in item 9 (which was sourced to the EPA), all the other sources describing the EPAs assertions in the most recent proposal are third party sources. Furthermore, as illustrated above, the existing language about the 300 oil spill settlement is highly problematic, as it omits key details and gives excess weight to the company's defense without mentioning a key objective fact (their refusal to disclose their maps to permit the agency to fully attribute spills to the company) that weakens their defense.
Given that the only specific objections raised were to (2) and the Invista settlement, I see no reason to hold all edits for more than a week. Furthermore, the proposal involved delaying the Invista discussion, to begin with. How about a complete hold on edits until 5PM PST on 8/31/2015 (one business day), for initial objections to be raised on items 1 through 10, with a deadline of one week for discussions to conclude regarding contentious items? In the interim, items without objections, or where consensus has been reached, can be submitted.
-VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
(there was an edit conflict with Springee's post above) Springee: again, I am happy to discuss any of the proposed items individually and work through any specific objections in a timely manner. However, your comment that you do not believe the (overall) article to be imbalanced does not address the specific examples of bias presented above. Furthermore, your assertion that "some" of the proposed additions do not deserve much WP:WEIGHT does not address any specific elements of the proposal that you deem to be undeserving of mention. I have been very specific in my proposed edits and, with the exception of the objections raised to (2) and the Invista settlement (which I proposed tabling anyways), have been met only with broad criticism.
Do you really mean to argue that the article's current treatment of the NTSB report is not terribly misleading? Or that the fact the company pled guilty to five felonies, including conspiracy to commit fraud, is undeserving of WP:WEIGHT? I have tried my best to make my proposals and justifications detailed and specific, and would appreciate if you, AR, and other editors would do the same. If you have objections to specific proposed edits, I welcome an open and frank discussion over the next week. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you need to turn the question around. You need to start with the assumption that the group consensus is that the current article is fine and then argue why your additions don't disrupt NPOV, UNDUE etc. That isn't to say your additions are bad (or good), only that you need to justify them vs expect others to justify not including them. Remember that the burden of justifying the changes rests on you the editor who wants to make them, not the others to prove they aren't good changes. For example, if you think the coverage of the NTSB report is misleading then you need to explain why and show us. I'm not familiar with the details of that example so convince me. My concern is that currently I see an article about VERY large corporate entity, an entity of a size and in industries where someone is always likely to be unhappy with them. The structure of the current article seems a reasonable balance between telling what the organization is and what they do and some of the issues they have had. Your last edit added significantly to the article but only added controversial/negative information. That is someone like talking about an actor and only talking about their legal run ins but ignoring many of their notable roles and how they got started etc. Such an article would be unbalanced and have a clear WEIGHT issue. I fear you may be trying to do the same thing here. It's hard to assume that your information will really be NPOV given your previous user name. Thus at this point you need to sell other editors on the idea to build consensus to insert your ideas. If you read WP:Consensus you should see that even if you know you are right, the system demands that we work from consensus rather than conviction. In short, you might be right but you need to sell others on the idea rather than putting the burden on others to justify rejecting your changes. Springee (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Springee: your statement regarding "burden of proof" is a fair one, though harping on my former username is unfair (I could just as easily refer to the KochInd.com IP addresses that edited the current article and argue that the existing article therefore must suffer from NPOV issues). I will endeavor to create a new section of the talk page ("VeritasVincitUSA's Edits"), with its own ten point outline corresponding to the 10 proposed edits. Each point will contain a detailed description of the proposed edit and a justification for it (including a comparison to existing language, if any). That will allow each edit to be discussed separately, in a format that is more conducive to productive parallel discussion and debate.
Your argument about the sum of the proposed changes representing a WEIGHT issue is less convincing, however, given that the Wikipedia pages for other very large controversial companies explicitly include sections dedicated to these types of issues. And, as an example of an actor with a legal rap sheet, Lindsay Lohan has an entire, quite large, section devoted to "Career Interruptions"--which involves a detailed discussion of her professional and legal problems.
- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that the new sections for each edit have been added, along with justifications. Please submit your comments/questions/feedback. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dickinson, Tim. "Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  2. ^ Dickinson, Tim. "Koch Industries Responds to Rolling Stone – And We Answer Back". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  3. ^ "Senate Report 101-216, A REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS". United States Senate. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  4. ^ "Firm Stole Indian Oil, Panel Told : $31 Million Owed, Investigators Tell Senate Committee". LATimes.com. The Associated Press. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  5. ^ "Oil theft lawsuit settled". IndianCountryTodayMediaNetwork.com. Indian Country Today Media Network. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  6. ^ "Blood and Oil". CBSNews.com. CBS. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  7. ^ "Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Iran Sales". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  8. ^ "Settlement reached in pipeline blast". news.google.com. The Victoria Advocate. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  9. ^ "Court records point to violations". CJonline.com. The Topeka Capital Journal. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  10. ^ Dickinson, Tim. "Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  11. ^ "Senate Report 101-216, A REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS". United States Senate. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  12. ^ "Firm Stole Indian Oil, Panel Told : $31 Million Owed, Investigators Tell Senate Committee". LATimes.com. The Associated Press. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  13. ^ "Oil theft lawsuit settled". IndianCountryTodayMediaNetwork.com. Indian Country Today Media Network. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  14. ^ "Blood and Oil". CBSNews.com. CBS. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  15. ^ "Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Iran Sales". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  16. ^ a b "Court records point to violations". CJonline.com. The Topeka Capital Journal. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  17. ^ "Settlement reached in pipeline blast". news.google.com. The Victoria Advocate. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  18. ^ Zweig, Phillip; Schroeder, Michael. "Bob Dole's Oil Patch Pals". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  19. ^ "Firm Stole Indian Oil, Panel Told : $31 Million Owed, Investigators Tell Senate Committee". LATimes.com. The Associated Press. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  20. ^ "Oil theft lawsuit settled". IndianCountryTodayMediaNetwork.com. Indian Country Today Media Network. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  21. ^ Fialka, John. "Koch Industries' $30 Million Fine Is Biggest-Ever Pollution Penalty". wsj.com. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  22. ^ Vidal, John. "US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace". theguardian.com. theguardian. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  23. ^ Contorno, Steve. "Has the EPA called Koch brothers businesses a 'model' company for a clean environment?". Politifact.com. Politifact. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  24. ^ "Business today - April 10, 2001". LubbockOnline.com. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  25. ^ "Guilty plea brings $28.5 million fine". TheEngineer.co.uk. TheEngineer.co.uk. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  26. ^ Wolters, Levi. "Invista to correct EPA violations". BizJournals.com. Wichita Business Journal. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  27. ^ "Chicago Petcoke Site Violated Clean Air Act". NBCChicago.com. NBC Chicago. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  28. ^ "KCBX Notice of Violation - April 28, 2015". EPA.gov. US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  29. ^ LaTrace, AJ. "Protesters Prepare for March on Chicago's Toxic Petcoke Piles". Curbed.com. Curbed. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  30. ^ Miner, Michael. "One more reason to thank God the Koch brothers didn't buy the Tribune". ChicagoReader.com. Chicago Reader. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  31. ^ Cohen, Bryan. "Madigan files additional lawsuit against KCBX Terminals over pet coke". CookCountyRecord.com. Cook County Record. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  32. ^ a b Zweig, Phillip; Schroeder, Michael. "Bob Dole's Oil Patch Pals". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
  33. ^ "Firm Stole Indian Oil, Panel Told : $31 Million Owed, Investigators Tell Senate Committee". LATimes.com. The Associated Press. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  34. ^ "Oil theft lawsuit settled". IndianCountryTodayMediaNetwork.com. Indian Country Today Media Network. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  35. ^ Ray, Russell. "Jury finds Koch cheated". TulsaWorld.com. Tulsa World. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
  36. ^ Hoover, Kent. "EPA flexes new muscle with record fine against Koch Industries". bizjournals.com. Houston Business Journal. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
  37. ^ "Koch makes acquisition in KoSa". BizJournals.com. Wichita Business Journal. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
  38. ^ "Pipeline Rupture, Liquid Butane Release and Fire". NTSB.gov. National Transportation Safety Bureau. Retrieved 30 August 2015.

Section break for readability

As promised, I have held all edits as of 5PM PST today, to allow for specific initial objections, rebuttals, and/or constructive suggestions to be offered on each of the individual proposed edits (with justifications) that I submitted. Point of fact: the only objection I have seen so far was to the creation of a dedicated Key Legal and Regulatory Events category.
As a high-level summary, the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" section demonstrates that the existing article suffers from at least one attempt to whitewash an important incident in the company's history, while the "Oil Theft" and "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud" sections illustrate two very significant errors of omission in the current article. Taken together, the proposed edits and justifications show that the existing article is overly deferential to the company's point of view (even when that perspective is repudiated spectacularly by an impartial jury), and is deficient in that it excludes and/or obscures key unflattering facts about the company and its history.
Since it took me some time to introduce the new sections, last night, I will hold off on introducing the new edits for the time being. However, tomorrow morning, I plan to make the following edits if no objections are raised:
1) The edit described in "Fatal Pipeline Explosion"
2) The edit described in "Falsifying a Document"
3) The edit described in "KCBX Chicago Petcoke Controversy"
4) The edit described in "300 Oil Spill Settlement"
5) The edit described in "Over 3 million gallons of crude oil"
6) The addition of the "Oil Theft" and "Conspiracy To Commit Fraud" edits to the Koch Industries' History section (as there is dispute as to whether a dedicated category should be created for legal and regulatory items).
Based on AR's comments in the Key Legal and Regulatory Events discussion, I believe that KoSa and INVISTA deserve short subsidiary sections (like Arteva). I call on AR to propose a full INVISTA section that summarizes the separate page currently dedicated to the company while I intend to amend and replace my "KoSa Price Fixing" proposal to provide for the addition of a dedicated KoSa subsidiary section that describes the company, its relation to Koch, and what it does.
In the interim, please submit any objections that you have to the proposed changes listed in the proposed edit sections below.
- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, first, given the scope of the changes you are proposing I think AR's suggestion of a week is quite reasonable. Not everyone is looking at the article every day. If you want longer it will make it look more like you really are working to improve the article vs forcing a POV into the article. Second, please put all the sections you created below in a single section with subsections. What you have added makes a bit of a mess of the talk page. The best thing you can do is take things slowly rather than trying to change the article all at once. Remember, go at it with the assumption that people think every thing is fine now. Sell the ideas one at a time and if they are good you will get them all in. It might take longer but you will get far less pushback. Springee (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not know how to change the separate sections into subsections; that was my intent but it did not happen the way I intended. How can I change the format? I propose the following order for the one-by-one discussions:
"Fatal Pipeline Explosion"
6, above (the addition of "Oil Theft" and "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud" to the History section)
"KCBX Chicago Petcoke Controversy"
"300 Oil Spill Settlement"
"Falsifying a Document"
"Over 3 million gallons of crude oil"
If we go individually, a week leaves roughly one day for the discussion and resolution of each item. That seems reasonable to me, especially if the most problematic items can be addressed first. So, tomorrow is "Fatal Pipeline Explosion".
- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Subsections are created by taking the 2x= "==" and making it 3x= "===". A day per topic is not long enough. Not everyone will check this talk section every day. You need to give people who don't check this topic every day time to look at and think about the changes. I know you are eager but honestly, that raises the same red flag your name raised. People see that over eagerness as a strong desire to inject a POV in the article. When you throw out too many changes at once you overwhelm people. They can't give the entry the proper due consideration. Some may just say yes because they don't feel like arguing, other's aren't convinced and will thus say no. WP:BRD basically puts the burden on you to prove the change benefits the article. If you can't convince people they will say no because they are overwhelmed and it's easier to say no. So, start out with the one or two most significant edits you would like. Propose them (heck, you can even make them to the article but they will likely be reverted right away) and then let people discuss those changes without feeling like you are breathing down their necks to make the next changes. In short, have patience! Springee (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I converted the sections to sub-sections, as requested. I believe the justification provided for each proposed edit meets the "burden of proof" with respect to showing that the proposed change benefits the text. Further improvement is still possible, of course, and that is what I hope to gain from the this process. You, and others, repeatedly accuse me of trying to inject a POV into the article and harp on my former username, but it is telling that even you have not engaged in the substance of the edits and attempted to suggest that the specific, detailed, changes proposed suffer from those deficiencies (particularly relative to the current, problematic, text).
We can start with "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" (the most egregious example of bias in the current, misleading, text), and item 6 (adding "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud" and "Oil Theft" to history). The floor is (and has been) open...
- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes below. It makes it more readable. Please understand that it will take myself and others time to look at your edits. It actually is much easier to send this sort of quick reply about style vs read over the citations and decide if they are reasonable and if this is an appropriate level of weight. As for the user name and POV comment, I'm sorry but that is the reality of it when you come in with a username that suggests a strong POV. What would you think of a new editor name "GovWallace4Prez" who comes into a page on 1960s era civil rights in Alabama and makes edits that effectively say "it wasn't that bad"? The editor might actually be right but would you assume that? You effectively did the same thing. Your good faith is evidenced by the fact that you aren't edit waring and you are on the talk page. Now you just need to do the patience part. Springee (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. Our username was "Kochtruth"--"truth" is the POV that Wikipedia is supposed to represent and not a position of advocacy (as in your example). Second, as I demonstrated with the justifications for my proposed edits (particularly "Fatal Pipeline Explosion"), it is the current article that is actually doing the equivalent of saying something objectively terrible "wasn't that bad." - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who saw your user name as problematic. You can feel we were wrong but that won't change things. Many feel the confederate flag isn't racist but that hasn't changed the minds of those who disagree. Your next task is to convince others that you are making the article better. I'm not convinced the current article is fundamentally flawed. Sure it doesn't cover everything but given it's length it seems that the coverage looks good. You need to convince us otherwise if you want your changes to stick. Springee (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This time, you made a spurious and unfair comparison to the confederate flag and racism, coupled with another broad defense of the existing article that refuses to engage specifically with the facts I presented to justify each of my proposed edits. Instead, you have attempted multiple times to shut down and/or delay discussion without engaging on any of the multiple specific, substantive, problems that were raised with both the items covered in the existing article and those that were excluded. It was also brought to my attention that you contributed to a frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation against me as an alternative to engaging with said facts.[1] Unlike your assumptions regarding my behavior, I have assumed, and continue to assume, good faith on your part. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
First, if you look I have replied to at least one of your proposed changes. Second, no mater how you argue it people, not just me, saw your username as a sign that you were going to come in with a strong POV on the subject. The blocking admin gave reasons why that user name was blocked and I agree. Others also were worried about the same thing and currently you haven't shown they were wrong about the strong POV. However, that does not mean you are editing in a disruptive way. So far you have actually been quite reasonable and easy to talk with if a bit eager to make changes before people get a chance to digest things. Third, the sockpuppet investigation was reasonable. I was right in assuming the accounts were linked though best practice is to state as such on your talk page (more than one account is acceptable for some reasons). I was mistaken in assuming that the admin who blocked your other account was not OK with you opening a new one vs putting in for a name change and block appeal. Please accept that I did the investigation in good faith and that because I was wrong about the nature of the block I'm 100% OK with the outcome. Springee (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought we are supposed to assume good faith (it's not my "burden of proof" to make regarding POV, and nobody has specifically objected to my proposed language from a POV standpoint). I look forward to working with you through the proposals, and am even more eager to discuss and engage on the specific substance of the changes than I am to make the changes. I welcome and look forward to your input. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
You are supposed to assume good faith until it is reasonable to assume otherwise. Evading a block would be a reason to assume otherwise. However, I was mistaken in thinking you were block evading. Also, assuming good faith doesn't mean assuming an unbiased POV. I strongly suspect that you have a strong POV on this subject. That actually makes sense since you joined Wikipedia to initially edit this topic. I joined to edit an automotive engineering related topic. I have a strong POV on that one as well. Having a strong POV doesn't mean you are acting in bad faith nor that your arguments are flawed. It just means that when you say "the article is not neutral" we can't take your view as that of a neutral observer (if such a thing ever really existed). We have to take it as the POV of an advocate. A BMW salesman may tell me the BMW is a better car than the Audi. Baring other information would you assume his opinion is unbiased or would you assume it favors the brand he sells? However, if he gives me a series of arguments why I might prefer the BMW and those reasons prove sound then, biased or not I have accepted his arguments. Springee (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @VeritasVincitUSA: So it's clear which editors' comments I'm responding to here, who are you including in the "we" when you say things like "we propose"?
I know you're champing at the bit to get some changes made here, so I hope several editors will respond your proposals promptly, but please understand that building consensus can take some time, particularly with so many different points to address. In general, though, I would caution against trying to follow the lead of the Rolling Stone article you cite too closely, as almost any notion of its journalistic objectivity should immediately be called into question after seeing the title and massive Mad magazine-style caricature at the top of the article. I implore you (if you haven't already) to read through all of the documents posted in the responses to the article which contain significant background information which I'm surprised to see you (and Rolling Stone) have excised or excluded from many of the narratives. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
AdventurousSquirrel: as I have mentioned multiple times earlier, Rolling Stone is used merely to establish two verifiable objective facts (the company's felony guilty pleas, and context) and not to support a point of view (and is certainly not cited "closely"). It is telling that the company's lengthy rebuttal to that article did not refute the specific facts that I cited the article to substantiate. If there is other source material that provides additional context surrounding this event, or refutes the fact that the company pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud, please post it to the relevant edit request thread ("Conspiracy to Commit Fraud"). I welcome a thorough fact-based discussion and hope to arrive at a treatment of the facts that is both objective and fair to the company.
However, your comment yet again casts aspersions on the reliability of the source material without disputing the facts in question. In addition, you are implicitly making an unfair accusation that I am not "objective" without actually refuting any of the source material and justification that I presented.
I have no intention of revealing my identity, given the allegations that Koch Industries previously tried to place false smears in the media in an attempt to discredit one of its public critics.[2] Rather than focusing on who I am, or my "objectivity", how about an objective discussion of the facts... - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (Added reflist) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that there are most likely some improvements that can be made based on your proposals, and I intend to respond to each of your proposals reviewing the facts point-by-point, but as I said - there is quite a lot of material to review, and these things can take some time.
I didn't mean to ask you to reveal your identity, I just assumed that your use of the plural "we" was referring to multiple editors commenting here, since WP:ROLE accounts are forbidden. I hoped to clarify which editors' viewpoints you were referring to. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm that this is not a WP:ROLE account. I will use the pronoun I exclusively, and make it unambiguous that I (and this account) speak only for myself, from now on to avoid any confusion. I look forward to a thorough discussion of the relevant facts. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kochtruth/Archive". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 1 September 2015.
  2. ^ "Who Tried To Smear Jane Mayer?". MediaMatters.org. Media Matters. Retrieved 3 September 2015.

Update

I've indefinitely blocked User:Kochtruth as a disruptive username so I suggest waiting a bit for a change in name. My talk page is open for any discussion but I assume that no one is going to even try to argue that the name "Kochtruth" with User:Kochtruth/sandbox as a sandbox and these edits is the type of username that won't make harmonious editing here more difficult or impossible but there's always something new here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Never assume. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Koch Industries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Environmental and safety record

No mention of the largest wrongful death settlement in US history (at the time $290 million) for the death of two boys after a pipeline explosion due to a faulty pipe the company knew about. Bunch of other really large and historic cases. Koch Industries needs its own article on this topic seeing as how WEIGHT is being used to keep material out of this one. -- GreenC 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Koch Industries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

POV issue with Political activity section

The political activity section of this article vastly under-represents the amount of political opposition there is to this corporation. I have tagged it appropriately. It needs a lot of work, because right now, it reads like it was written by their own PR department. BruzerFox 17:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Koch Industries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Koch Membrane Systems

Should Koch Membrane systems https://www.kochmembrane.com/ be added to this page? Also, what other companies and subsidiaries are missing? Centerone (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch,_Inc./Archive_5&oldid=1242001633"