User talk:162.229.178.111

I just read the Wikipedia page on Charles Koch. Pretty sanitized version. I thought Wikipedia was a good source for balanced information. How come you didn't discuss all the lawsuits the family had battling for money, how Charles (David and Bill) tried to blackmail Fredrick because they thought he was gay and tried to force Fredrick to sell his share of the company? Or how Charles broke into Fredrick's home to try to get dirt? Why not discuss some of the "legacies" of the Koch industry plants like the Pine Bend Refinery in MN with the benzene contamination and leukemia deaths? Charles hates government regulations and Koch industries have been huge polluters. I laughed when I read the Wikipedia pages on the Pine Bend Refinery where the authors noted the safety awards PBR has received recently, but nothing about their "benzene" problems of the past. Benzene was also a problem with other Koch refineries in Texas, etc. Why not discuss the horrendous environmental record that the "Koch philosophy" of free markets and Libertarianism has lead to? His philanthropic activities over the last 10 years are discussed on the Wikipedia page (this was part of his big PR campaign to clean-up his image) but not the legacy of pollution, denying climate change, fines by the EPA, etc. Wonder why? You could have a section entitled "controversies" and cover some of this stuff.

I have been asked several times to contribute to Wikipedia in the past, and I have b/c I thought it was balanced. Now I'm not so sure. Would you be sued (by Koch industries) if these were written about? If so, then I'll know that Wikipedia can't be trusted either. Only flattery can be written about powerful people, corporations, etc.