Talk:Caterpillar Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Specification of Controversy

I changed

Caterpillar has been the target of protests because of the use of its products by Israel for land clearance in the occupied territories of Palestine.

to

Public protests have called on Caterpillar to cease sales of its products to Israel because of their use for punative home demolition and land clearance in the occupied territories of Palestine.

Because the protests are not against caterpillar as a business or a business model but calling on them to exercise corporate responsibility as per their own corp resp statement "Our responsibility as a global citizen is to enhance the lives of our neighbors around the world" or "We strive to ensure that our success as a corporation contributes to the quality of life of all people touched by our business..."

It's fairly obvious that Cat can't control what someone does with their machinery once it's sold, however, CAT can be expected not to sell their machinery if they have demonstrated evidence of what it will be used for and they don't want their coroporation to be associated with those actions. Now if you agree with this or not, whatever, that's not the issue. I was changing for clarity.

Next, I added "punative home demolition" to land clearance. Land clearance strikes me as odd phrasology bc land clearance doesn't describe why it's an issue. To my knowledge no one has a problem with israel clearing boulders, trees, etc, the issue is clearing land that is already occupied by people against the will of those people. I chose punative home demolition because that's the term the IDF and Amnesty use, it seems the most NPOV. I also linked to an exhaustive report by amnesty which calls those acts war crimes. However I did not put that part in the article because I think it would just cause a ruckus with people. I also linked to the report to cite my sources for all the people who think home destruction is tinfoil hat nonsense. TitaniumDreads 10:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and explanations, TitaniumDreads. I think you have worded the section more clearly, and more fairly. One suggestion is to use reference tags instead of external links embedded in the text. see: WP:CITE. Keep up the good work. — Fudoreaper 04:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)



Is this page about Caterpillar machinery or the Israeli-Palestine conflict?

Its a page about the company, and coporate governence is usually a important issue. GraemeLeggett 10:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Where are the so-called protests? Cat has bigger problems with their labor union, but this is not mentioned in the article. Is this controversy a sufficiently big deal for it to comprise the bulk of the article? Friday 28 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)
(in response to being asked for a section on labor disputes) I don't think the labor disputes are particularly noteworthy. Any large company will have people protesting occasionally. Are we going to write about every one? Judging from whoever the original commenter was above, more people than just me think the controversy section is already way overblown. Of course, I did some internet searching, this is something that some people are concerned about. So maybe it's relevant. Still seems strange that it's the biggest part of the article, though. Friday 28 June 2005 18:41 (UTC)


Its the biggest part ofg the article only because more has been written about it than anything else. Adding something about four year dispute would even things up. British Leyland was famous for its strikes and News International, and British coal mines for picketing. GraemeLeggett 28 June 2005 21:01 (UTC)
I shortened things up. I think it still tells the whole story. Details are probably better located in Jewish Voice for Peace anyway. It seemed silly to have only one subsection in controversies. Friday 30 June 2005 02:42 (UTC)

---

Who cares about someone using Cat products to bulldoze someone else's house? It wasn't Cat who put the guy in the driver's seat.

[edit] What the !@#$?

Whoever keeps saying that Cat has begun to manufacture clothing and shoes is an idoit. Cat has licensed it's logo to clothing and shoe companies - it doesn't make its own.

Furthermore, who gives a !@## about the use of Cat products in Israel? In fact, who cares about Israel?

  • For the sole point that it is newsworthy. The issue comes up at their boardmeetings and someone even died bringing it to the worlds attention. We're just interested in the facts as they relate to the company. --Hooperbloob 20:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


  • So, you'd rather blame a company for making a product than blame the people who use the product to destroy. Lots of new-worthy topics come up during board meetings. I don't suppose you care, though do you? Cat has facilities in almost 1/3 of the world's countries, you can't possibly be saying that the only noteworthy controversy is about Israel? Unless, of course, you're a Jew or a Palestinian. You probably believe everything you read in the papers and see on TV - not realizing that only one point of view is being expressed. You might as well only read the National Enquirer. I only hope with a mind as small and narrow as yours, you’re not a voting American.


I happen to agree that blaming the toolmaker for evils done with the tools is short-sighted and foolish. However, we're not here to write an op-ed piece; last I looked, this was meant to be an encyclopedia. Relevant policies here include WP:NPOV and WP:CIV. Friday 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you are aware of other newsworthy items to include in the article then by all means, please expand it. A section on the lengthy labour strike might be a good addition. --Hooperbloob 16:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a very general section under the Controversy heading about the labor pains of the 1980's and the environmental pains. Thanks for the suggestion Hooperbloob. I didn't have much time to do a lot of research, just going off of memory. I'll refine it later. --Robotel 16:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sad

Sad to see so much vandalism and hate on a page. I've deleted the comments by the unknown author, as well as Hooperbloob's level-headed responses simply because there is too much hate in the discussion. I hope you don't mind, Hooperbloob.

This was a page about a company, right? Not about religion wars?

In any light - I've reverted the page back to how I re-wrote it several weeks ago. I hope next time I check it out it'll be somewhat the same. --Robotel 14:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I had reverted it to the version prior to your edits because of some suspicious sentences. This one in particular: "The story of Caterpillar Inc. dates back to the late 19th century, when Daniel Best and Benjamin Holt were experimenting with ways to fulfill the promise that steam tractors held for farming."
It shows up on "I'm too lazy and unethical to write my own essay" sites in the intro of their essays about Cat. Some other bits and pieces tend to pop up in various places, but that's the one that triggered the revert in the first place. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Products

Just a question, why make links to pages that don't exist? There are hundreds of products made by Caterpillar, so unless the "notable products" becomes a pure list of everything, I think it should only go to pages that have content.

[edit] Israel with Caterpillar, Inc.

It is riduculus that this so called isreali controversy is even mentioned in an article about BULLDOZERS! I have never heard about any protests against CAT because of the isreali crisis, and i dont think it warrents mention in an article which should concentrate on CAT's history, Marketing, Products, and Structure. Anyone who thinks that caterpiller inc. is remotly connected to the day to day activities in israel is an idiot. The tractors being used are old, probably purchesed a decade ago. Next thing you kno we will be blaming Ford when somone dies from DWI. ridiculus.Paco8191 05:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Boy, I think I am going to have to agree on this one. I think that is certainly something that shouldn't be included. You don't see some sort of section like that in Hummer for producing military vechicles that fight in war. I am going to have to say remove that section of the article. Get some other opinions though.--Kranar drogin 05:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
While the association may seem "rediculus" to the casual observer, quite a few people and organizations have tied the two together to make it an issue, real or otherwise. Go Google "caterpillar israel" and see how many hits you get, it generates a lot of noise. As we try to maintain a complete article on the company, we'd be remiss if we left out the controversy.--Hooperbloob 06:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
So we have two removes and a keep. Lets get more consensus before we remove it. But i rly do agree with Kranar drogin, the common wikipidia user has no knolege or care about caterpiller's connection to isreal. A google search proves nothing. There are 1.8 million hits for the search phrase "aliens in the whitehouse"; does that make the theory more legitimate? Google should not become wikipidias relevence measurment tool. The CAT/Israel connection is a ridiculus argument perpetuated by people who are already biased against caterpiller and corporate america in general. just bc some church sold an infantesimal amount of CAT shares over this "controversy" also proves nothing. THis is really a common sense issue more then anything. strong remove. Paco8191 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Your "Aliens in the whitehouse" example only garners 1200 hits ..even then they seem seem to exist just as mediocre musical group. Google and other search engines have long been called upon to ascertain notability. See here. (BTW, if there really were 1.8 million hits for the "aliens.." phrase the phenomenon would probably be worthy of an article as well, seriously. Whether the notion has any actual merit is beside the point, although we would still require that proponents could document their claims)--Hooperbloob 00:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree that the "Israeli use" section should be removed. We don't blame Daimler-Chrysler for the recent use of a Jeep Cherokee to attempt to bomb the Glasgow airport building - such usage is not related to any design flaws or business practices of the companies involved but rather related only to the choices of the users of the products. Smasherjohann 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

— Smasherjohann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Even the most basic three seconds of research proves the notability of this subject. Googling "caterpillar bulldozer" brings up Wikipeida's "Caterpillar D9", which talks about the controversy, then "Caterpillar", then two websites condemning the company for the Israel thing. Googling "caterpillar bulldozer Israel criticized" brings up numerous US mainstream media reports on the issue. Next time, make the most basic minimal effort to learn about the subject instead of coasting along on personal biases. Eleland 03:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I'm reverted less than four hours later. I'm beginning to notice a pattern on this encyclopedia. Eleland 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The information was removed, again, with the only comment being "accusations of bad-faith don't change the consensus that this forking is inappropriate" in the edit summary. The term "forking" refers to the creation of new articles to cover different sides of the same subject, which is the opposite of what I was doing. I can discern no evidence of a consensus from the talk page discussion, indeed, the lack of consensus is so obvious that it's difficult to assume good faith in claiming it existed.
Thus far the dominant argument for deleting the information seems to be that it reports criticisms which are "ridiculus" or unfounded. But this argument is not relevant to the issue. The existence of these criticisms has been widely reported in major media outlets. The criticisms have been made by significant groups including Human Rights Watch and the UN's Envoy for the Right to Food. Can anyone offer a valid explanation of why they shouldn't be mentioned? Eleland 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to change my opinion yet to remove the section yet. It just seems not something that needs to be added as per the Hummer example and Daimler-Chrysler example. I will wait and see what the wider viewpoint from the community brings though, and will abide by what they all agree upon.--Kranar drogin 20:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hummer has not been the subject of verifiable, publsihed criticisms for making military HMMWVS, although it has been for the perceived environmental wastefulness of the "Hummer", and that appears on their WP article. Daimler-Chrysler has not been the subject of verifiable, published criticisms for some random use in a terrorist attack. Caterpillar has, according to verifiable, published sources, been criticized for sales to Israel that it knew, or should have known, would be used in violations of the laws of war. The accusers include some quite heavyweight persons ans institutions and do not appear to constitute an "extreme minority" of opinion. Prima facie, that proves that their views should be included here. Eleland 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, i must restate my previus opinion. This is an article about the Caterpllar Corporation. It is about their business practices, corporate strategies, financial figures, products, and marketing. it is NOT a portal to the Israeli-palistinain conflict! And once again i call on the community to use common sense. McVeige used a Rider van to blow up the oklahoma city building. DO WE ATTACK RIDER FOR RENTING IT TO HIM??? no, just as we should not question caterpiller for doing what they are supposed to do: sell buldozers. And it doesnt matter what organizations throw thier names onto this issue, and it doesnt matter if CNN mentioned it. Just because something is well-known does not make it worth while of mention in this article. perhaps in the irael article one could say "american companies have been criticized..." I believe a strong concensus has been reached on this issue already. use common sense to decide an issue; dont use google. Paco8191 05:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The examples you mention fail a very simple test: "Did the incident affect affect the company or its perception in the eye of the public in some material way?". Lets take a more relevant example, the Tylenol scare. Here we have a company that did no wrong but whose products were used to poison consumers. It obviously was a newsworthy item and it not only affected Johnson & Johnson but also the way we package most goods from that point forward. Numerous other companies create products that are not used as they intended. The fact is that unfortunately a company that produces benign earthmoving equipment found their tools being used as a weapon in a very public & polarizing conflict -- that grabbed the attention of a lot of people. The nice thing about the Wikipedia:Search engine test is that it passes no judgment as to the merits of the topic, it only serves as a measure of its mindshare with the general public..and thats makes it notable. What counts for "common sense" varies widely, hence the proscribed methodology. To have Wikipedia articles exist as a mere duplicates of what corporations put on their websites would make no sense, we have to include all of it to see the actual environment they work in. --Hooperbloob 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Caterpillar's D9 bulldozer has been equipped with armor and military equipment by third parties" There is the smoking gun. These buldozers were modified by THIRD parties. This removes cat even further from the conflict, if thats possible. HOW can caterpiller possibly controll what tractor owners do to their machines once they own them??? If i own a ford, and i rig it to blow up, ford is not blamed for my actions. The issue here is that israel made the modifications, and should be mentioned in the irael article. I think it is apparent that a consensus has been made here, and im removing the israel section. Paco8191 05:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any and all relevant discussion already exists at armored bulldozer, and forking here just doesn't make sense. TewfikTalk 07:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Paco, please acknowledge that it doesn't matter at all if the criticisms are baseless. There seems to be a consistent confusion between the idea of reporting that controversies exist, and taking the side of those involved in a controversy. If these protesters were accusing Caterpillar of selling to the Martian Army for bulldozing houses on Venus, they would still be included as long as they were recorded in verifiable published sources and were not clearly the views of an extreme minority. The reason we don't edit, for example Toyota to say that "Toyota has been criticized for their light trucks' use by Iraqi and Afghan insurgents" is that nobody has made such criticims, at nobody reported in verifiable published sources, and not forming an extreme minority of opinion. That's the standard — verifiability. Tewfik, please learn what the word "forking" means in Wikipedia parlance. Creation of sections which summarize information that is treated more fully elsewhere is not forking, it's an acknowledged best practice used in all sorts of cases. Eleland 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There are verifiable sources mentioning the controversy, so it can be mentioned in Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and so the article mentions sources that report people saying "Catapillar makes armoured bulldozers for the Israeli army" even though they might be wrong. The way to counter that is to include links to sources that counter the claims. 84.12.142.218 12:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I own stock in the Caterpillar company and thus receive proxy information for the annual stock holders meeting. In 2005, there was a vote before the stockholders that, if passed, would have (in effect) demanded that Caterpillar stop selling to the Israelies (text of the proposal). The controversy over the use of Caterpillar vehicles by Israel reached beyond fringe movements into the business world. While I disagree with the idea that Caterpillar has any responsability for the usage of the bulldozers once they were sold, the issue did reach a point of public awareness where it is a valid topic in an article. Epolk 16:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source link. That resolution was very similar to the resolution made a year before by the same group. Do you know if anything came up in the 2006 meeting? Eleland 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Epolk, if what you say is true, and CAT actually held a vote regarding this issue, then yes I would agree that it it worthy of mention. This proxy must be cited first. In light of this new evidence, i feel that we can keep the section, butit should be re-done in a way that more accuratly fits the issue. Mention which groups have levled the criticism, and mention that CAT actually was moved to vote on the issue, and I will agree that this section should stay. It must be cited tho. Paco8191 23:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also it would be good to know what the result of the vote was, lol. Paco8191 23:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The second citation I placed in the section is a report of an almost identical resolution made one year before. It was politely humoured, then defeated by 96% to 4% of voting shares, gg kthx. Eleland 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone document what the result of the motion was, or even how common it would be for such an event to take place. If it was something that any shareholder could raise, among many other such motions, then it would still not be notable. TewfikTalk 08:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Any shareholder present at an annual stockholder meeting can raise any issue and suggest motions. Holding a single share is sufficient. Isarig 14:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the section should be removed. Israel's use of bulldozers is not inherently tied to Caterpillar bulldozers. Should Caterpillar decide to no longer sell to Israel, there is nothing to stop Israel from using another manufacturer, or even from making their own. So the issue is really Israel's use of bulldozers, not Israel's use of Caterpillar's bulldozers. Including this section unfairly politicizes the article towards a certain end, that is, stopping Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes.

While the issue is related to Caterpillar, I don't think it merits being a part of a neutral article describing a corporation. For instance, the articles on IBM or Mercedes-Benz makes not even the smallest reference of their involvement in the Holocaust. Likewise, this issue is beyond the scope of this article.

Jshalvi 21:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Jshalvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Whoever is behind this, cut it out. The fact that you're savvy enough to edit your monobook.js immediately upon arrival shows that you're not a newbie who found this discussion from a link to some web forum, but an obvious sockpuppet. Stop it now. Eleland 00:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I signed up today just for the monobook. I happened to see this on the wider attention list and thought I'd chime in. Jshalvi 04:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If I've misjudged you, I apologize. Given that a bizarrely high number of brand-new users have been chiming in, trying to "vote" on deleting this section, I hope you can see how I would be skeptical. To address the substance of your edits, the IBM reference is an interesting point, although an "IBM and the Holocaust" link does appear in the see-also section. The "History of IBM" section does contain a small summary wikilinking to IBM and the Holocaust. One difference is that IBM holocaust complicity was only alleged sixty years after the fact, while CAT is currently the target of protests and major media coverage, including a motion from their own shareholders, related to the issue. Your second point seems to be related to the accuracy, validity, or effectiveness of Caterpillar-related protests, rather than their relevance or notability. Since you've apparently been here for a while, you've probably read WP:V and WP:NPOV already, but you might want to check over them again, just in case. Eleland 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference that you point out, of IBM and MB's controversy not being discussed on their main entries, even though they are old, is a further support for removing this information, as providing such undue weight to what is only a small and relatively recent part of Caterpillar is exactly what Wikipedia:Recentism tells us not to do. TewfikTalk 06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Why dont we have another vote to keep/remove? It seems we have been going back and forth to no end and we should simply try to resolve this by vote.Paco8191 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be kept. Google search proves significant mindshare. Kent Wang 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic lessons in NPOV and WP:V

It would seem based on the earlier talk section that a refresher course in Wikipedia policies could be useful.

Activists have criticized Caterpillar for their Israel sales. This has been reported in numerous "mainstream" media sources in the West. I provided 3 such reports.

It doesn't matter what you, or anyone, personally thinks of these criticisms. The criticisms exist. They've been widely reported. The information is verifiable.

Editors must not remove information about an argument because they personally disagree with the argument. Wikipedia must include all notable points of view which appear in verifiable published sources. Reporting that activists have said something does not imply that the activists are correct. Removing those reports because you think the activists aren't correct contradicts Wikipedia's core policies. Eleland 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I support Eleland's modifications to the article. As stupid as the criticisms are, they have been widely reported. —porges(talk) 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not question the fact that this is widly reported. I question the relevacy of this information in a Wikiproject Companies article. For the record, I personaly am NOT pro-israel. infact, I am lebanese and am decidedly favorable to the palistinian cause. I have not allowed my opinions to clout my judgment. I have used common sense to know that this is an irrelevent non-issue which has no place in this article.Paco8191 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a "wikiproject companies" article is an article which WkPjCo takes an active interest in, not one that WkPjCo owns. Also, "common sense" does not trump the opinions of verifiable published sources on the issue. I'm glad to hear your edits are not motivated by personal bias on the Israeli-Palestinian cause, though. Eleland 13:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The current minimal version is the way it should stay, in my opinion. Yes, activists made an issue out of Cat in Palestine. That's enough information right there! The problem I have with expanding the entry is the same problem I had originally with the report of activists getting mad at Caterpillar: it doesn't matter to the Israelis who supplies the equipment... they're going to do what they do anyway. If not Cat, then Komatsu or John Deere or Hangzhou. The anger is misdirected.
We don't need the line about an ongoing suit.
We don't need the stub notice for expansion except maybe to link to the page on armored tractors. Binksternet 01:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I concurr with binksternet, lets keep it short and to the point, with links to armored tractors. Paco8191 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments of those in favor of providing references of the controversy; in fact, I believe that a verbose description of this controversy is acceptable. The issue may be contoversial, but it certainly reflects the company's history, and is therefore completely revevant. Furthermore, we should not be discussing the hypothesis of where Israel would purchase vehicles had it not purchased from CAT, and we should stick with the facts: CAT has sold vehicles to Israel and it has caused controversy, causing further investigation into CAT's sales and moral conduct. This is all evident and supported by the several references given in the article. Wastekid 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Wastekid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd like to ensure that everyone is familiar with the Wikipedia policies on sockpuppetry. TewfikTalk 18:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wastekid wrote: "... in fact, I believe that a verbose description of this controversy is acceptable..." No, please, verbose is not necessary. A mention, a link to armored bulldozer, and that's enough. Binksternet 02:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calls for link to "armoured bulldozer"

It seems that some editors who originally wanted to exorcise any mention of Israel from this article are now calling for a link to "armored bulldozer". I don't know if they've read the article, or if they're just following along with someone else's proposal.

That article contains a whitewashed summary of "normal" uses of combat engineering D9's, ending with the single obscured reference to the issue, "...as well as leveling small buildings." There is no mention of house demolitions, criticisms from activists, etc. The relevant articles are Caterpillar_D9#Military_applications and House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Linking to armored bulldozer on this issue would be like linking to Punched card to explain IBM and the Holocaust. Eleland 12:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, calling the armored bulldozer article "whitewashed" doesn't mean that it isn't worth linking to within the Caterpillar, Inc. page. 'Whitewashed' is a negative way to represent the concept of NPOV. Perhaps your editing skills are needed at the armored bulldozer page in order to make it more up-to-date and relevant... at any rate, there's already a combat engineering vehicle link in the section under discussion; linking to armored bulldozer could be seen as redundant, in that every armored bulldozer is also a combat engineering vehicle. All I'm asking for is to keep the Military Conversion section brief, not verbose. Extra verbiage can be added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, if desired, as the main thrust of the issue belongs there. The issue is NOT about Caterpillar; any one of the many globally available bulldozers can be acquired, armored and employed to knock down houses. A bulldozer blade can even be fitted to a military tank. At any rate, the issue is primarily about the actions of the end users of the tools and the results of their actions, not the tools themselves. A brief mention (like we have now) is quite enough. Binksternet 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It is effectively a whitewash to go on at length about combat uses, when the vast majority of attention has been devoted to the demolition of civilian houses and not to, let's say, building revetments; I understand the desire to have a neutral and balanced article about the military equipment, but total removal of the controversy is going too far. Anyway, that's a discussion for Talk:Armored bulldozer.
I think it would be appropriate to have a section roughly as long as the other two "controversies" sections, which are several paragraphs in length. I understand the desire to avoid dragging a generally good and well-written article about a company into the contentious morass that is Israel-Palestine on Wikipedia, but I don't believe that's a valid reason to ignore what is undoubtedly a serious controversy involving Caterpillar.
One suggestion to expand the section would be to include rejoinders to the criticisms. For instance, the shareholders' motion was met with a statement from the Board, reading in part: "We have neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use of that equipment. We believe any comments on political conflict in the region are best left to our governmental leaders who have the ability to impact action and advance the peace process." This would certainly be an appropriate addition, and appears to mirror the statements made my many on this talk page. Eleland 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, I feel there are major issues of undue weight and recentism with this content, which with all due respect to everyone's political views, are not at all parallel to IBM and the Holocaust. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is already spread over hundreds of entries, and adding yet another one to the mix, when this should be about the company and nothing more, is a bad idea. TewfikTalk 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I still maintain the issue isn't even relevant to the article, and its mere mention or link to armored bulldozer creates bias towards a current political issue. One may say armored bulldozer is whitewashed (so why bother linking), but its original version talks about nothing but Israel's use of the D9 and was far from being NPOV due to its narrow scope.
Currently, the article has two external links to resources concerning protests (catdestroyshomes.com and a waronwar booklet), and a direct link to House_demolition_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. To me, this creates severe undue weight on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is beyond the scope and intention of an article on Caterpillar, Inc. While these issues should brought to light, this is a bad entry-way, plunging an unsuspecting reader deep into one side of the conflict. It is better served being linked from the many many other pages concerning the I/P conflict where context can be provided.Jshalvi 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The external links may be unduly weighted, but that's an easy enough fix. Your other objection is difficult for me to understand. CAT has been accused of violating its own policies, and violating the law, with sales to Israel to be used as military equipment. The issue is precisely "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", and linking here does not "plunge" the "unsuspecting reader" into anything but an exposition of that issue. It's not our obligation to provide balance or context on the whole conflict, just on the specific issue of Caterpillar sales to Israel. I believe this section already gives decent balance and context considering how short it is; the addition of Caterpillar's official response to these criticisms might help further. Eleland 17:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If the specific issue is Caterpillar Sales to Israel, then why link to the broader issue of housing demolition. It's one thing to say "CAT has been criticized for selling bulldozers to Israel" and "CAT has been criticized for selling bulldozers to Israel to destroy homes." Likewise, you can mention the on-going lawsuit, or you can mention the on-going lawsuit by the parents of Rachel Corrie. Is there no difference?
By linking in Wikipedia you are linking by implication. Someone above said the article should not be a corporate statement, and likewise it should not be an activist's fact sheet.
CAT did not cause the conflict, nor did CAT kill Rachel Corrie. Many users have already expressed a disdain for even having this content included at all. Linking to armored bulldozer is a reasonable compromise.
Forgot to add my sig... and I'll add this. Both armored bulldozer and Caterpillar D9 talk about the destruction of Palestinian homes. Seems a bit over-documented to me.Jshalvi 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What "seems to you" is not all that relevant in the absence of some factual or policy based reasoning. The fact that "many users" (including sockpuppets) have "expressed a disdain" is not relevant since most of those users simply said WP:IDONTLIKEIT and declined to provide any valid reasoning according to WP policies or guidelines. Armored bulldozer is a general treatment of those vehicles from a military-science perspective and has very little information relevant to the controversy (less than one sentence, last time I checked). Caterpillar D9 was a decent enough article last I looked, but it would be somewhat of a misleading link because D10s are at issue as well, and I would like to see source material in any case before specifying particular model numbers. In any case, House_demolition_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict is precisely the issue over which Caterpillar, Inc. has been condemned. Activists are not up in arms over D9's digging revetments or filling in trenches. It's not on Wikipedia editors to shepherd our readers carefully through every issue, seeing only what we want them to see regardless of what real-world primary and secondary sources have to say. While I will not comment on your personal motives, I have observed a long and bitter campaign by partisans of Israel to delete that article, minimize and downplay the information it presents, push official Israeli POV, and other indiscretions. I certainly hope no such operation is underway here. Eleland 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll add CAT's official response and call it a day.Jshalvi 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I thought we reached consensus on this and you have expanded the section plus added an image from catdestroyshomes.com. While I will not question 'your' motives, I see an effort to selectively apply Wikipedia's policies in order to insert as many "verifiable facts" about Israel on this page as possible. There are plenty of images which illustrate this activity in House_demolition_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. Despite my personal opinion, I have reached consensus on the inclusion of the content as it was.Jshalvi 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if it came off as some kind of underhanded "stealth edit", this was absolutely not my intention. I added a clearly relevant public domain image; I'm not sure how this could be a problem. Other sections have images, indeed, there is a very prominent picture of an Israeli D10 engaged in "civilian" work and even a picture of a Cat-branded shoe. Your protestations that the image is NPOV and "from a biased source" are very strange to me. The picture shows an Israeli bulldozer demolishing a Palestinian home. That's what we're talking about here. If the controversy was about Israeli bulldozers distributing flowers and cotton candy it would be NPOV to include a demolition image, but demolition is the issue here! As for the image coming from catdestroyshomes.com, I have no idea about that. I saw it on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, noticed that it was copyright-free, and figured it was an excellent inclusion. Images do not automatically inherit bias from their original sources.
Nor do I understand the comment about inserting as much Israel-related information as possible. There is clearly a great deal to talk about here, probably enough to create a largeish spinout article. The information which I added was simply a fleshing out and specification of what was already there; I specifically mentioned the shareholder motion mainly as a way to introduce the statement of Cat's board, and I added proper source information on the Corrie lawsuit, basically restoring some facts which were commented out with " <!-- PROOF?".
Anyway, your slightly rewritten version is just fine with me, the main issue seems to be inclusion of the image. Can you specify what are the specific POV problems you perceive? Eleland 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the image itself is, in fact, cited as coming from catdestroyshomes.com. If you click on it the source is clearly stated. An image claiming to be a bulldozer demolishing a palestinian home is deserving of a more authoritative source. It most likely is a palestinian home, but there is indeed a great deal of spin when it comes to images coming from that region. So again, a better source is needed.
Secondly, you're right, my real issue is with the inclusion of the image and more importantly, giving this section its due weight. At some point we need to draw the line between 'CAT sales to Israel' and 'Israel demolishing Palestinian homes.' What we are reporting here is an alleged link between CAT and illegal home-demolition, not the act itself.
This topic is highly controversial, so we must be extra-sensitive to ensure WP:NPOV by placing due weight and using authoritative sources. CAT shoes are not controversial, nor are civilian uses of bulldozers. But bulldozing homes, and CAT's connection to it, is controversial. To place an image of a CAT bulldozer demolishing a home on CAT Inc's page states for a fact that CAT is linked to this controversial activity. Since we cannot graphically represent an allegation, words will have to do.
I understand that the issue in general is the demolition of homes, and there's an article for that already. But the issue here on this page is CAT's possible connection to it. Not the act itself. Perhaps my argument falls more under "relevance" or WP:NOTE
With regards to Israel-related information, I think you touched on that with your suggestion of a spinout article. I have no doubt there are mounds of sources on this topic, but they're pretty much saying the same thing for a few years now, without much change in policy. Even the source for the Rachel Corrie lawsuit has little to say, and that's considered a local issue coming from the Seattle PI. While noteworthy, the issue hasn't spurred significant public debate or coverage by newspapers of record in relation to Caterpillar's normal newsworthy operations.Jshalvi 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Controversy and Bias

If we're going to keep the section on Israel's policies, then I've added "settler homes" to the section to add balance. Over 1500 settler homes have been demolished with CAT equipment and there's no reason that that should not be mentioned. However, I think the Israel controversy section should be removed. I am raising this issue again because having that section goes against all logical reasoning. As has been mentioned, it is ludicrous to blame a company for the policies of their clients. Do we blame BOEING for building jets for Israel? No. Why should we blame CAT? CAT is not responsible for Israel's policies - this is a logical fallacy and does NOT belong on Wikipedia. No mainstream media outlet endorses the argument that CAT is responsible for Israel's policies. This section should be deleted. There is already an article on home demolition. Also, someone earlier said that this is a popular issue and therefore should be kept - but that argument is an appeal to popularity. It essentialy says just because enough people think its controversial, it is therefore controversial. Not true. Controversy must be reasonable. We do not say a company is controversial due to an unrelated issue! Israel's use of bulldozers is not related to CAT. CAT has no influence over that policy, and critics need to get that through their head. Again, Wikipedia should not allow these kinds of logical fallacies. In the meantime, I've deleted part of the section as a compromise. Monitorer 06:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I am getting quite tired of editors substituting their personal opinions for the source material. Activists have not criticized CAT over settler demolitions. Whether you think it's ludicrous, whether it actually is ludicrous, is irrelevant. The controversy exists, therefore we report it -- and we do not create false permutations of the controversy to satisfy somebody's personal opinions. Please review policy on original syntheses of source material. Eleland 12:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough:::Monitorer 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture

I was just wondering, if you guys have finshed your "politically correct" arguments whether you might get back to talking about CAT machinery. There is a very lucrative collaboration between Claas of Germany, and CAT, whereby each gets to distribute the other's agriculture products in Europe and North America. There is a link on the article Combine harvester, with a photo of a CAT (Claas) combine, but no mention of either of these things on your article. You might want to write a section about this. Tom 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). <eleland/talkedits> 22:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I notice a strong tendency among commentators on this site to want to remove any hint of controversy connected to Caterpillar's activities. The result is to align the article with Caterpillar's own corporate interest, and effectively to present the facts from Caterpillar's own POV. For example, the 'Labour controversy' section is not, as it stands at the moment, the history of Caterpillar's relations with organised labour, but the story of how the company successfully outflanked those pesky unions. This violates NPOV. It is a fact that people have protested Caterpillar selling bulldozers to Israel. Whether those people are right or wrong to do so, is not for us to decide; it's true that the company has been criticised for who it does business with, so it deserves to stay in the article. Period. Lexo (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The "environment" section is similarily skewed; there is a summary of an environmental controversy, followed by a whole lot of bullet-points about this or that alleged environmental commitment of CAT, like their donations to business-friendly, conservative conservation groups, and their membership in the "World Business Council for Sustainable Development" whose first principle is "Business is good for sustainable development". Uh-huh... suspicious? <eleland/talkedits> 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is not so bad now. It was atrocious before; most of the article was just non-NPOV screeds by people opposed to Israel's actions in the Palestine territory, to the point where it approached WP:coatrack. The greenwashing "bullet point" prose could be toned down a bit, but even that is mild compared to the bullet points from other non-neutral points of view that used to run rampant in this article. There seem to be a lot of editors whose POV seem to be that the defining identity of Caterpillar is related to either Palestine, clean air, labor relations, or whatever they're pushing this week. All of those are probably somewhat notable, but almost none of these folks who insert this stuff (regardless of what side they're on — even the ones that write about Caterpillar's side of the story) seem to have any neutral contributions to make about Caterpillar's tractors and engines themselves. (Remember those? That's what Cat does, you know — makes tractors and engines.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas

I don't see how Hamas' (or anybody's) relationship to Caterpillar is equivalent to Israel's relationship to Caterpillar. See the lengthy discussion above. I just want to avoid another edit war, but feel free to discuss.

If you feel otherwise, feel free to lead a news-worthy, grass-roots protest effort, at which point it may be included here ;) Jshalvi (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

What statement are you referring to that does not allow the inclusion of Cat's logo? I'm just wondering, as I'd really like to know why the SVG version of their logo that I created for this article has been removed because of a statement by the "General Counsel". CoolKid1993 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure specifically why the logo was removed (I presume because Caterpillar requested it), but here's the edit where Wikimedia's General Counsel Mike Godwin removed the logo and an accompanying discussion which confirms this. I guess there's no harm in asking him exactly why the logo was taken out. Gr1st (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)