Talk:Koch, Inc.

Environmental and safety record

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

Pollution and resource fines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental and safety record (new section)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Layoff notices if Obama elected

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

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

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

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

Koch Industries replied that

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

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

Contributions to Dems and GOP

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

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

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

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

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

...in response to the Koch industries statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 2011 Bloomberg Markets Exposé

1.1 Bribery of Foreign Officials

1.2 Firing of Compliance Officer

1.3 Trading with Iran

1.4 Falsifying Benzene Emissions

1.5 Stealing Oil on Indian Reservations

1.6 Deadly Butane Explosion

1.7 The 'Koch Method'

2 Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

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

4 Koch Brothers' Fortune vs. Koch Industries' Employment

5 Affiliations and Funding of Interest Groups

5.1 Koch Family Foundations

5.2 Cato Institute

5.3 Americans for Prosperity

5.4 Tea Party Movement and Funding

6 Direct Lobbying and Campaign Contributions

6.1 Political Contributions

6.2 Lobbying

7 Koch Industries' Political Activities

7.1 Voting Advice to Employees

7.2 Koch strategy retreat, 2011

7.2.1 Attendees

7.2.1.1 June 2010 participants

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

7.3 Linked to union-busting efforts

7.3.1 In Wisconsin and nationally, 2011

7.4 Climate denial and delay

7.4.1 Fighting greenhouse gas regulations

7.4.1.1 Regional Climate Change Accords

7.4.1.1.1 New Hampshire

7.4.1.2 EPA, 2011

7.4.1.3 California, 2010

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

7.4.2 Other Koch funding

7.4.2.1 Koch-funded organizations

7.4.2.2 Organizations' messaging on "ClimateGate"

7.5 Tar Sands, 2011

7.6 Actions during and before the GW Bush administration

7.6.1 Lobbying

7.6.2 Pollution - Spills, fines and indictments

7.6.2.1 Off the hook after GWBush became president

7.6.2.1.1 Koch representation in Bush's cabinet

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

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

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

Stating facts about well-known controversies doesn't make an article a "hit piece". For example, there's no mention whatsoever of the controversial trading with Iran? That's a blaring omission in itself and further evidence of whitewashing. We all need to go forward with making an informative article with a NPOV and NOT a public relations piece for Koch Industries. If you fight adding a NPOV to this article you will be against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, you are not the arbiter of whether or not "the article has plenty of criticism"; That is up to consensus as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cowicide (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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