Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VeritasVincitUSA (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 2 September 2015 (→KoSa Price Fixing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Koch, Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Koch, Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Legal and Regulatory Events Removed

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, 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.

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. The company's lengthy retort, which Rolling Stone also published in its entirety, did not dispute the factual accuracy of this claim.

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." 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. These findings were subsequently cited in Federal False Claims Act lawsuit that Koch Industries reportedly settled for $25 million.

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. 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.". Koch Industries paid $3.5 million in punitive damages, the maximum amount allowed under Texas law, and appealed the $296 million verdict. 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.

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.

Item 2

In 1989, A Report of the Special Committee on Investigations of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs concluded that Koch Oil intentionally stole crude oil by fraudulently mismeasuring the oil it was purchasing. 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. Koch Industries settled a Federal False Claims Act lawsuit, for a reported $25 million, which was brought based on these facts.

Item 3

In 1999, a civil jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice in conjunction with a fatal 1996 pipeline explosion. 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, and was substantially higher than the $100 million sought by the plantiff. Koch Industries paid $3.5 million in punitive damages, the maximum amount allowed under Texas law, and appealed the record $296 million verdict. The case was ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum. 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 ] 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. 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. Koch Industries settled a Federal False Claims Act lawsuit, for a reported $25 million, which was brought based on these facts.

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. In aggregate, the spills caused more than 3 million gallons of crude oil to leak into ponds, lakes and coastal waters.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.. The same facility was subsequently found to be in violation of the Clean Air Act again in April, 2015.. KCBX's petcoke piles in Chicago have sparked protests and complaints from community members, who allege that petcoke dust from the facility is a public nuisance and potential health hazard. Such complaints regarding KCBX petcoke dust prompted at least two lawsuits that were filed by the Illinois Attorney General against KCBX.

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. 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. The investigation was referred to U.S. Attorney of Newark, who chose not to pursue a criminal indictment against Koch Industries in 1992. However, Koch Industries settled a Federal False Claims Act lawsuit in 2001, for a reported $25 million, which was brought based on these facts. 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.

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
2. Flint Hills Resources LP
   1. 1999 (announcement) negligent dumping of aviation fuel and illegal dumping of wastewarer (Rosemont, Minnesota)
   2. 2000 (grand jury inditment) for "environmental crimes" near Corpus Cristi, Texas
   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
   2. 2000 alleged 300 separate violations (although few could be identified), settlement of $30M

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. 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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

VeritasVincitUSA's Edits

I welcome discussion on each of the proposed edits. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

KCBX Chicago Petcoke Controversy

Proposed Addition to Recent News Section

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.. The same facility was subsequently found to be in violation of the Clean Air Act again in April, 2015.. KCBX's petcoke piles in Chicago have sparked protests and complaints from community members, who allege that petcoke dust from the facility is a public nuisance and potential health hazard. Such complaints regarding KCBX petcoke dust prompted at least two lawsuits that were filed by the Illinois Attorney General against KCBX.

Justification

The KCBX petcoke controversy 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. The popular HBO series VICE even dedicated an entire segment to a broader discussion of petcoke in Chicago and its impact on local residents. Given the extensive media coverage, inflamed passions of local residents, and the attorney general's lawsuits, it is difficult to argue that the facts do not merit inclusion. The recent news section is probably the best place for this item given that litigation is still ongoing.

I would be open to including a response/defense from the company following these facts. However, Koch Industries has been largely unsympathetic to the problem; last year it was reported that Koch even threatened to sue the city of Chicago for trying to further regulate the petcoke piles.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This ongoing petcoke controversy has been more widely covered than other "recent news" items and, is substantiated by both authoritative primary source citations (the EPA Notices of Violation are de-facto evidence of the agency's finding of the company to be in violation), and independent, third-party, sources. The treatment is purely factual and does not represent a point of view. In the interest of BALANCE, it would be helpful if somebody could dig up a defense or response from the company that does not make it look even worse than the facts do; however, such a response should not be required (particularly if the company actually has not responded sympathetically to the issue). I will leave the floor open for a couple more days for objections or revisions. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Key Legal and Regulatory Events" Section

I propose adding a Key Legal and Regulatory Events section following "Koch Industries" in company history. My proposed title for the new section is neutral in language, and parallels similar sections for other large controversial companies, like Bank Of America ("Fraud"), JPMorgan Chase ("Controversies"), Walmart ("Criticism"), Monsanto ("Legal Actions and Controversies"), etc.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• strong Oppose, unless you also want to include the awards and positive reports from regulatory agencies; even if not, it's a significant degradation of the existing format. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: I am open to including the one notable and significant positive mention from the EPA that is on the INVISTA page provided, however, that the language you proposed pulling is coupled with a factual description of what the company did to receive the praise/award. If this section starts becoming a "snow job" of immaterial "awards", however, I would propose restoring balance by consolidating all of the significant negative regulatory items in this section as per my original edit (for now, it would only contain the three negative items that are not placed in the subsidiary sections). As an example, I would be open to concluding the section with:

Koch-subsidiary INVISTA was recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009 for proactively self-reporting, as part of a settlement that involved paying a $1.7 million civil penalty, and spending up to an estimated $500 million to correct environmental violations in seven states. This represented the largest settlement in the history of the EPA Audit program, which started in 1995. According to the EPA, "the emission reductions resulting from correcting these violations will result in estimated annual human health benefits valued at over $325 million, including 30 fewer premature deaths per year, 2,000 fewer days/year when people would miss school or work, and over 9,000 fewer cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms."

Would you agree to have the three items I proposed adding to this section atop this final item? - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I still oppose the section as being an orthogonal organization system, leaving it a difficult, and inherently POV, decision as to which section a paragraph is to be placed in.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Then, where do you propose putting items, such as these, which do not have dedicated subsidiary pages or pertain to the parent company? Should I create subsidiary pages for INVISTA and KoSa, and add the "Oil Theft" and "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud" items (which pertain to Koch Industries) to the main Koch Industries history? Both items are substantially more notable and worthy of mention than the 2010 change to the health plan design. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If added, they should be in an appropriate subsection consistent with the current subsectioning. As I said before, the INVISTA item should (if appropriate) be on the Invista subpage, and that subpage excepted in the Invista section here; whether that dispute should appear in this article is a separate consideration. I don't think KoSa's "sins" should appear in this article at all, unless a reliable source commenting on it also says that Koch Industries "controls" the organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Detailed justifications for adding each item have been posted for roughly two days, and no rebuttal/objection has been made to present an argument that they should be omitted in that time. As per Rolling Stone, the "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud" item pertains to "Koch Industries" and should appear under that item if it is not part of a dedicated Legal and Regulatory events section. Per the "KoSa Price Fixing" justification, a reliable source suggests that KoSa was not only controlled, but 100% owned, by Koch Industries at the time of the settlement (and presumably remains so today). Bloomberg News also sought fit to mention the KoSa price fixing episode in the context of Koch Industries. Pleas raise objections to the inclusion of specific items in the relevant section. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

Proposed Addition to New Key Legal and Regulatory Events Section

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.

Justification

As part of a lengthy investigative article, the Rolling Stone reported on these felony guilty pleas. The company's lengthy retort, which Rolling Stone also published in its entirety, did not dispute the factual accuracy of this claim.

The Rolling Stone is a reliable independent secondary source, and this article was widely circulated online. Even credible allegations of civil fraud against other large companies, like Bank Of America, have been given prominent placement on the companies' Misplaced Pages pages. These felony guilty pleas, especially conspiracy to commit fraud, are noteworthy and warrant prominent inclusion in the article.

The proposed treatment is objective, and limited to the facts.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Per AR's objection to the creation of the Legal and Regulatory Events page, the appropriate placement for this event would be under "Koch Industries", the corporate entity to which it is attributed. I will leave this edit summary up for a couple more days to see if there are any objections raised. In the absence of objections to the content, I intend to make this edit within the next couple of days. It is clearly more noteworthy than information already included, and the treatment is objective, limited to verifiable facts, and substantiated by a reliable, independent, third-party source (and was not even refuted by the company in its rebuttal to the publication). - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oil Theft

Proposed Addition to New Key Legal and Regulatory Events Section

In 1989, a United States Senate committee concluded that Koch Oil intentionally stole crude oil by fraudulently mismeasuring the oil it was purchasing. 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. The investigation was referred to U.S. Attorney of Newark, who chose not to pursue a criminal indictment against Koch Industries in 1992. However, Koch Industries settled a Federal False Claims Act lawsuit in 2001, for a reported $25 million, which was brought based on these facts. 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.

Justification

The absence of any discussion about this episode in the company's history was, by far, the biggest error of omission. First off, the report of the independent Senate investigation was damning. For example:

"Koch Oil, the largest purchaser of Indian oil in the country, was engaged in a widespread and sophisticated scheme to steal crude oil from Indians and others through fraudulent mismeasuring and reporting. The Committee sent its investigators into the field to conduct covert surveillance and caught Koch stealing from Indians on six separate occasions. By further investigation, the Committee determined that Koch was engaged in systematic theft, stealing millions in Oklahoma alone."

Then, the decision not to pursue criminal indictments was marred by controversy (see the BusinessWeek article, above). The US Attorney (Timothy Leonard) overseeing the case was granted a "waiver of conflict rules" and allowed to oversee the case even though "Koch Industries purchased oil from wells in which Leonard and his family had royalty interests."

Furthermore, the jury that ultimatly heard the civil case based on the facts in the Senate report found them credible. Bloomberg News ultimately weighed in in 2011, describing the "Koch method":

The case came to trial in 1999. Former company employees testified that Koch Industries trained them to steal.

Phil Dubose, who worked for Koch Industries from 1968 to 1994, told the jury how the scheme worked.

“The Koch Method is to cheat the producer out of crude oil,” he said.

He testified that he was able to steal 2,000 barrels a month from one customer.

“You used every available tool to mismeasure the crude oil in Koch’s favor,” says Dubose, who is now retired.

What really makes it surprising that this incident is not included in the article, however, is that the entire episode represented an unusually public, vitriolic, more than decade-long incident in the company's history. In a CBS News article, Bill Koch is actually quoted as saying that Koch Industries, under his own brother's leadership, engined in "(o)rganized crime. And management driven from the top down."

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This item also relates primarily to "Koch Industries" (it was the named lead defendant in the False Claims Act case and thereby alleged, and found by the jury, to have orchestrated the theft).. As with the other entries, I will leave the floor open for a couple more days for initial objections and revision requests. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Fatal Pipeline Explosion

Replace the Existing Text:

An investigation conducted by the NTSB found that the pipe section which failed had not been shown to have excessive corrosion in a 1995 inspection. Regulations at the time did not provide criteria for "adequate cathodic protection." Koch also stated that the bacteria-induced corrosion acted quicker than had ever previously been recorded in the industry. The explosion was the only event of its kind in the company’s history. In 1999, a Texas jury found that negligence had led to the rupture of the Koch pipeline and awarded the victims' families $296 million.

With the New Text:

In 1999, a civil jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice in conjunction with a fatal 1996 pipeline explosion. 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, and was substantially higher than the $100 million sought by the plantiff. Koch Industries paid $3.5 million in punitive damages, the maximum amount allowed under Texas law, and appealed the record $296 million verdict. The case was ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum

Problems with the Existing Text

The existing text is both misleading and WP:UNDUE, as it gives disproportionate weight to the company's verison of events when the jury's verdict reflects a complete repudiation of that view.

The NTSB report, itself, is available online and the one-sentence probable cause summary states explicitly that "the probable cause of this accident was the failure of Koch to adequately protect its pipeline from corrosion." The facts from the report presented in the current text are cherry-picked, and do not reflect the final conclusion of the report's authors--which is not even mentioned.

The sentence beginning "Koch also stated" presents the company's viewpoint without allocating "equal time" to the version of events that the jury accepted. The verdict was reported by CBS News(see our citation) as "negligence and malice" while it is presented above as mere "negligence". Furthermore, the noteworthy (and, indeed, historic) nature of the magnitude of the jury's verdict is not mentioned.

The current version does not describe the subsequent appeal and resolution of the case.

Additional Justification

The version of events the jury believed is even more unfavorable to the company than our neutral and objective version suggests. According to the CBS News article cited above:

Danny Smalley filed suit against Koch Industries. His attorney, Ted Lyon, says the investigation exposed a pattern of negligence and coverup involving the pipeline known as Sterling One. Lyon describes the pipeline as like "Swiss Cheese."

"They admitted to me if they had done things the way they should have, my child and Jason would still be alive," says Danny Smalley. "They said, 'We're sorry Mr. Smalley, that your child lost her life and Jason lost his life.' Sorry doesn’t get it. They’re not sorry. The only thing they looked at was the bottom dollar. How much money would they lose if they shut the pipeline down. They didn’t care, all they wanted was the money."

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In looking at the text I would tend to agree that the current could use improvement. I do not think your text is an improvement. Jury awards are notoriously unpredictable and juries are not experts in the subject mater. I think it would be best to find the views of reliable third parties to describe what happened as a retrospective (articles published around the time of the event should also be discounted as later facts may change the understood progression of events). The views of the plaintiff attorneys at best are opinions and can not be taken as reliable. The last quote again is an appeal to emotion by the plaintiff. We can not accept it as reliable. I don't think this is a change for the better but I do think the original could be improved. As posted I would reject your changes as focusing too heavily on the plaintiff arguments and jury award before appeal. It would be better to stick with reliable sources covering the facts of the case. Springee (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not propose using the prejudicial quotes in my language (which was focused specifically on the outcome of the case and the historic and noteworthy nature of the jury verdict). The current treatment of the NTSB report is clearly misleading, and it appears the current language describing the verdict is inadequate per CBS News. The one sentence probable cause summary of the NTSB investigation would be relevant, is as brief as the current treatment of the report, and reflects the independent "expert" view that you describe. It is worth noting that the phrase "failure of Koch to adequately protect" would seem to support a civil claim for negligence, though I am not an expert on NTSB investigations.

You state that my version "focus too heavy on the platiff arguments" but my proposal does not mention the plaintiffs' arguments at all. I merely referenced the plaintiff's arguments (which prevailed) as additional support for my language. I also disagree that the retrospective "views of reliable third-parties" should be given greater weight than the views of 12 independent third-parties who heard the case at the time (though such views should certainly be given some weight).

The historic nature of the jury verdict is both noteworthy and relevant and, while juries may not be subject matter experts, fair treatment of a legal case requires both accurately describing the verdict ("negligence and malice" per CBS News) and attributing at least equal weight to the version of events that is supported by "the preponderance of the evidence" in the view of the plurality of jury members who hear the case. There is no justification for anything resembling the current language (which gives far more weight to defendants' arguments, cherry-picks facts from an NTSB report that are not consistent with its conclusion, does not accurately reflect the verdict per CBS News, and does not note the historic nature of the verdict).

I will prepare alternative language that incorporates the NTSB's probable cause conclusion (the summary of the independent "expert" view), and gives less weight to the appeals process and settlement of the case. However, if you suggest that a discussion of the company's defense (like the current language) merits inclusion, then the plaintiff's case also merits discussion (most notably, the plantiffs' allegations that an investigation revealed "negligence and coverup" and that the company admitted "if they had done things the way they should have, my child and Jason would still be alive"). Judging by the verdict, the jury was extremely and unusually unsympathetic to the defendant's arguments. I see no reason for us to give them undue deference. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) (corrected to read "defendant's" in last sentence)

Revised Proposal For Discussion

An investigation conducted by the NTSB concluded that "the probable cause of this accident was the failure of Koch to adequately protect its pipeline from corrosion." One of the victim's families filed a civil wrongful death suit against Koch Industries and, in 1999, a jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice. The jury’s $296 million judgment, in Smalley v. Koch Industries, is the largest-ever compensatory damages verdict in a United States corporate wrongful death case.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the existing language is imprecise (the verdict), misleading (the NTSB report), and biased (UNDUE presentation of defense argument), I intend to replace the old language with the new "revised proposal" language later today unless there is a specific argument made that the new language suffers from greater deficiencies than the existing text. I am, of course, open to additional improvements to the revised language in the interim (to be made either in talk now or inline later with a justification posted here). In this case, there is a sense of urgency given the significant problems with the current language. Even Springee, the only user to object to the proposal to date, admits "the current could use improvement." His specific objections to the original proposed change have been addressed by the revised proposal. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your rewrite swings things too far in the other direction. The original text provides some clear justifications for the company to not realize anything was wrong with the pipeline. Are those explanations true? I'm not sure I like including the magnitude of the award given how often jury awards are cut down. Look at the Ford Pinto cases. In historical retrospective Ford was largely found to have not behaved in an egregious fashion. I think the best thing here would be blending some of the facts that you have added with those from the original passage. Springee (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On balance, the independent expert NTSB report (and, particularly, its conclusion) is highly unsympathetic to the company's view. If you want to include cherry-picked facts that support the company's defense, then it is necessary (at the very least) to introduce the rebuttal facts that the report found more convincing and supportive of the its conclusion. For example, the current language says: the pipeline "had not been shown to have excessive corrosion in a 1995 inspection". However, the report also presents a fact that supports both the overall conclusion that the pipeline inspection was "inadequate" and the defense claims of "negligence and coverup":

"The found indications of severe corrosion were identified in about 15 lengths of pipe. These areas were not identified during the May 1995 inspection as having either moderate or severe corrosion."

Furthermore, the existing language presents an unsourced Koch assertion regarding the unusual speed of bacteria corrosion. Meanwhile, the NTSB report indicates that rapid corrosion was to be expected given that:

Low soil resistivity readings of 507 ohm-cm at the rupture site, 862 ohm-cm 50 feet north of the rupture site, and 1,149 ohm-cm 50 feet south of the rupture site were recorded. Soil resistivity values at these levels generally indicate highly corrosive soil. (emphasis mine)

If you believe that much time should be allotted to unsourced Koch assertions and cherry-picked facts supporting the company's defense, then BALANCE requires that at least "equal time" be given to the plaintiff's assertions and the facts supporting the plaintiff's case (which the jury found more credible). Somehow, I don't think you want to re-litigate the case on this page. If you have a counter-proposal to the language I proposed, which you believe is not imprecise, biased, and/or misleading, I would certainly like to see it presented and defended. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much time to look at this. I think the initial passage seems to be very short on citations. When I searched for information much of what I found was blogs which we generally can't use as a RS. Rolling Stones is a questionable source in my view. This is because often they go with the shocking rather than really carefully considered work. Look at their stance on vaccines a while back. They ran a very critical anti-vax article that later was shown to be just flat wrong. The NTSB report does seem to be one of the more reliable sources thus far. The Iran article is an inappropriate citation in this case. We don't need it to verify the initial verdict and it clearly only mentions the value in passing. Anyway, I think this still needs work. I agree that the current entry seems too dismissive but I don't think you are improving things by going too far in the other direction. I'm not sure how much I can look into this for the next day or so. Springee (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Rolling Stone was not cited in my proposal here (it was cited elsewhere, and only to establish a verifiable objective fact--not support a POV), and I don't know what "Iran" is. Here, the NTSB report, CBS News, and Bloomberg News are cited in the most recent proposal. The NTSB report and Bloomberg article are already cited elsewhere in the article, and all three sources are cited merely to establish objective, verifiable facts. The CBS News article is cited because it describes the verdict accurately ("negligence and malice"). The proposed language suffers from none of the established deficiencies in the existing language; as such, I will post the new language and you are welcome to propose a revision when you have more time. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not support the new language as better than the existing entry and will revert if posted as proposed. Please don't jump the gun.Springee (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your lack of support (without presenting alternative language or a compelling case why the existing language is better) is duly noted. You are welcome to revert, and post both a justification for your reversion and your proposed new language. However, I want my proposed change, with a reference to this discussion, "on-the-record" on the main page. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reverted. Note that making changes when talk discussions are active is a sign of disruptive editing. You have already done the WP:BOLD change. It was reverted, now we need to discuss. Springee (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the "Consensus" page, "editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor." By your own admission, the existing language "could use improvement". You have not provided justification for your assertion that the existing language is superior to my edit; as such, I politely request a reason why you believe it should not remain in effect until we can, together, come up with an even better substitute for the problematic existing language. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Over 3 million gallons of crude oil"

Replace the Existing Text:

"for the 300 reported oil spills allegedly attributed to Koch"

With the Following Text:

"for the 300 reported oil spills, involving an aggregate of over 3 million gallons of crude oil, allegedly attributed to Koch"

Justification

The existing text does not give any indication as to the magnitude of the spills in question. Was it 300 teaspoons or 300 million barrels? The 3 million gallons number was widely reported and gives the reader a sense of scale.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

300 Oil Spill Settlement

Add New Text:

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.

after the Existing Text:

Koch disputed the EPA figures, saying the EPA did not file claims in over half of the 300 alleged cases, and further, that "Many of these alleged spills are not even listed in the EPA's own oil spill data base."

Justification

The existing article presents Koch's version of events without alloting any time to the rebuttal. In this case, it is understandable that the fact the company refused to supply maps frustrated the EPA's attempts to properly attribute spills to Koch and file claims. The citation I propose even includes a quote from an EPA official expressing how "contentious" the case was.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Falsifying a Document"

Change the Existing Text:

In April 2001, Koch pleaded guilty to one count, related to wastewater reporting it had self-reported to the government in 1995, according to the company.

To The New Text:

In April 2001, Koch pleaded guilty to falsifying a document.

Justification

In this case, the existing text completely excludes pertinent information in favor of presenting the company's defense. The existing text just says "one count"--"one count" of what? In addition, the company's defense is irrelevant as it they pleaded guilty (which, by definition, involves admitting wrongdoing).

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

KoSa Price Fixing

Add New Item to Key Legal and Regulatory Events

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.

Justification

This represented a large criminal fine for the company, and an executive was actually sentenced to jail time in connection with the scheme. 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. 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").

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even though you answered one of my questions as to relevance, it might be listed only if the some source both reported on the fine and reported that Koch controlled KoSa. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Two reliable sources reported separately on the fine, and the fact that Koch was the 100% owner of KoSa before the time the fine was assessed. That would seem to meet the burden of proof you established. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Still not adequate for "Koch-affiliated", even if significance were established. Although significance is not established, if it were, a sentence could be added that KI paid the fine after acquisition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You are correct with respect to "affiliated." please consider the more precise phrasing below, and placement under INVISTA. It was a massive criminal fine and an executive went to prison; that pretty well establishes the signficance.

In 2002, KoSa, what had been a 50/50 joint-venture between Koch Industries and Imasab, agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $28.5 million criminal fine for conspiring to fix prices and allocate customers. In 2001, following the misconduct but before the 2002 settlement, Koch acquired the 50% of KoSa it did not own and subsequently merged it into INVISTA.

- VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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. ^ "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. ^ 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.
39. "Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kochtruth/Archive". Misplaced Pages.org. Misplaced Pages. Retrieved 1 September 2015.
40. "Chicago Petcoke Site Violated Clean Air Act". NBCChicago.com. NBC Chicago. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
41. "KCBX Notice of Violation - April 28, 2015". EPA.gov. US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
42. LaTrace, AJ. "Protesters Prepare for March on Chicago's Toxic Petcoke Piles". Curbed.com. Curbed. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
43. Miner, Michael. "One more reason to thank God the Koch brothers didn't buy the Tribune". ChicagoReader.com. Chicago Reader. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
44. Cohen, Bryan. "Madigan files additional lawsuit against KCBX Terminals over pet coke". CookCountyRecord.com. Cook County Record. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
45. "Petcoke: Toxic Waste in the Windy City". VICE.com. VICE. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
46. LaTrace, AJ. "Koch Brothers Threaten to Sue Over New Petcoke Ordinance". Curbed.com. Curbed. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
47. Wolters, Levi. "Invista to correct EPA violations". BizJournals.com. Wichita Business Journal. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
48. "United States Announces Largest Settlement Under Environmental Protection Agency's Audit Policy". EPA. Retrieved 27 April 2011.
49. Dickinson, Tim. "Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
50. Dickinson, Tim. "Koch Industries Responds to Rolling Stone – And We Answer Back". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
51. "Firm Stole Indian Oil, Panel Told : $31 Million Owed, Investigators Tell Senate Committee". LATimes.com. The Associated Press. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
52. "Oil theft lawsuit settled". IndianCountryTodayMediaNetwork.com. Indian Country Today Media Network. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
53. Ray, Russell. "Jury finds Koch cheated". TulsaWorld.com. Tulsa World. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
54. "A REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS". United States Senate. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
55. Loder, Asjylyn; Evans, David. "Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Iran Sales". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
56. "Blood and Oil". CBSNews.com. CBS News. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
57. "Plaintiffs Allege Koch Industries Engaged in Systematic Oil Theft". PRNewswire.com (Press Release). PR Newswire. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
58. "Blood and Oil". CBSNews.com. CBS. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
59. "Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Iran Sales". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
60. "Settlement reached in pipeline blast". news.google.com. The Victoria Advocate. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
61. "Pipeline Rupture, Liquid Butane Release and Fire". NTSB.gov. National Transportation Safety Bureau. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
62. "Pipeline Rupture, Liquid Butane Release and Fire". NTSB.gov. National Transportation Safety Bureau. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
63. "Blood and Oil". CBSNews.com. CBS. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
64. "Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Iran Sales". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
65. Hoover, Kent. "EPA flexes new muscle with record fine against Koch Industries". bizjournals.com. Houston Business Journal. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
66. "Business today - April 10, 2001". LubbockOnline.com. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
67. "Guilty plea brings $28.5 million fine". TheEngineer.co.uk. TheEngineer.co.uk. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
68. "COMPANY AGREES TO PLEAD GUILTY AND PAY $28.5 MILLION FINE FOR PARTICIPATING IN POLYESTER STAPLE CARTEL". Justice.gov. Justice Department. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
69. "Koch makes acquisition in KoSa". BizJournals.com. Wichita Business Journal. Retrieved 30 August 2015.
70. ^ "EC clears Koch takeover of KoSa joint venture". ICIS.com. ICIS. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
71. "Guilty plea brings $28.5 million fine". TheEngineer.co.uk. TheEngineer.co.uk. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
72. "Koch makes acquisition in KoSa". BizJournals.com. Wichita Business Journal. Retrieved 30 August 2015.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class company articles
• Mid-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• C-Class energy articles
• Low-importance energy articles
• C-Class Kansas articles
• Low-importance Kansas articles
• WikiProject Kansas articles