Talk:Arch Coal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on November 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Contents 1 Google finance link 2 WAS 4.250 keeping it "neutral" 3 competitors section 4 How Low is low

[edit] Google finance link

I don't know who removed the link to the Google finance profile, but I'm sure you had a good reason. However, I would like to readd the link to the talk page at least, because it contains an index of news articles useful to future writers. Google Finance: News for Arch Coal, Inc. --tjstrf 01:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAS 4.250 keeping it "neutral"

Great edit, there, by WAS 4.250 to keep the Controversies section "neutral". I wonder if WAS 4.250 ever heats or lights his house with electricity derived from a coal-fired powerplant? Has he written numerous letters to the power company, asking them not to buy coal from mountaintop removal companies? I'm sure he'd be perfectly delighted to pay another 35% on his bill, to know that the coal was taken from underground mines, instead. WAS 4.250 is such a noted environmentalist and would NEVER edit Wikipedia merely to make a point. --72.94.153.33 14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on the neutrality of the controversy section. It smacks of kneejerk reaction, I have posted my thoughts to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Arch_Coal in response to FloNight's comments. - Hahnchen 16:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] competitors section

i don't think a competitor section is really necessary here. they have their own articles, and shouldn't be mentioned just because they exist in the same market at Arch Coal. if needed, one could state they are second only to Peabody Energy in the leadin factoid. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be common practice to tie together related articles. I figured putting it in a sentence is a bit more elegant then just a bulleted "see also" list. ---J.S (t|c) 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

heh, well tell me if this isn't ok; it's pretty much the same info incorporated differently. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesnt. It's not listing the other two major competitors. (I'm sure there's more, but those 3 were the ones listed) Related articles get linked together so people who want to learn more will have easy clues as to where to go. Many articles use templates to do it. Look at the bottom of Pepsi. But that's not the only way to do it. ---J.S (t|c) 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe a solution here would be to create a "List of coal producers in the United States"? ---J.S (t|c) 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The competitors below Arch Coal would be appropriate for the list, but not the article. You see, if you do 3, why not 5? Why not 10 competitors? Then it might as well be the list article. So, the list seems like the best option here. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, it's fairly common to list the competitors of a company. Not only is is "appropriate" it's standard practice. For example: Microsoft lists more then 10 and Coke lists dozens. Our job is not to promote or hurt a company... it's to make the encyclopedia, and make it easy to navigate. ---J.S (t|c) 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A list or category seems best to me. It keeps all the information in just one place. Ben Aveling 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that an article can make its point without namedropping; comparisons like that are inherently POV. Saying something like 'Arch Coal is 2nd in the U.S. for coal production, besting many competitors' is better than 'Arch Coal is 2nd in the U.S. for coal production, bested by Peabody Energy but besting company x, company y, company z etc.'. The first just sounds more encyclopedic. And Coca-Cola#Coca-Cola and Local Competitors is uuuuugly; tone is important. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You weren't arguing about the tone of the inclusion up until now. I can agree that my writing style needs a lot of work. :) ---J.S (t|c) 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reference 3, the company's own website is a RS with respect to details about the organization and officers of the company. It is not a RS regarding market share. If correct, there should probably is a better source for this.DGG 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How Low is low

What does low sulphur mean? Low compared to what? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a classification of coal. this website has some informal information on the difference between low-sulfur and normal coal. ---J.S (t|c) 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wyoming coal is noted for its extremely low sulfur content (0.4% to 0.06 % with Eastern coal at 3.0% to 5.0 % or more)."

But is arch coal's low sulphur as low as Wyoming coal's low sulpher? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's in the range of wyoming coal, but I don't have a source for that off hand. ---J.S (t|c) 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There's lots of low sulfur coal being mined in the eastern U.S. -- as low or lower than Wyoming and with much higher BTU values. (That said, the east also has lots of higher sulfur coal).--A. B. 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)