Talk:Arch Resources

message: 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)
thread_title: Google finance link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WAS 4.250 keeping it "neutral" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Like I said, it's fairly common to list the competitors of a company. Not only is it "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  competitors section 

message: :Image:Arch Coal logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Arch Coal logo.png

message: These are the pages that actually mention Arch Coal on the websites cited in this article:
*http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/07/us/as-hills-fill-hollows-some-west-virginia-residents-are-fighting-king-coal.html?scp=30&sq=&pagewanted=all
*http://yosemite.epa.gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/9e269ff376fbe64285256a07006b733b?OpenDocument
*http://www.wvgazette.com/static/series/mining/index.html The Charleston Gazette series
*http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/ed9229750e389ab2852570d60070fbe1!OpenDocument
*http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB0518895FCBD12&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
*http://wvgazette.com/News/MiningtheMountains/200806260561
Not quite sure which document is correct yet, but the link on the main space is dead: 
*http://www.tlpj.org/Explore-Issues/Cases.aspx?cpid=20&nid=5252
There are a number of other articles dealing with mergers, sales, profits etc, but I just included the readily available links related to the surface mining section. I did not do a news search on Ashland, subsidiaries, PACs, associations, etc. Flowanda | Talk 05:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources that actually reference Arch Coal 

message: The paid editing fiasco (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz ) seems important to me.  That is, the article lends undue weight to certain aspects of the subject but not others.
I wasn't able to find news coverage using google, however. --Elvey (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Environmental impact" section has three paragraphs of PR fluff in it.  Is an award from a relatively obscure museum really that notable, especially to lead off the section?  Especially when a search of the news finds dozens of articles criticizing their environmental record (hell, I found an article published two days ago, 18 Oct, 2013, about public opposition to their work).  This article is in dire need of cleanup. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Elvey apparently missed the part about the fact that (according to MyWikiBiz) Arch Coal never asked for, never paid for, an article about itself on Wikipedia.  It was just a test-case article for MyWikiBiz. -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arch Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104023322/http://missourifirms.com/arch-coal-foundation.BMx7.missouri-company-profile.html to http://missourifirms.com/arch-coal-foundation.BMx7.missouri-company-profile.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925074954/http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis.htm to http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225144751/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/culture/articles/970811/archive_007620.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970811/archive_007620.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225133244/http://www.tlpj.org:80/briefs/mountpi.htm to http://www.tlpj.org/briefs/mountpi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arch Coal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414023935/http://wvoter-owned.org/news/2006/01_09.html to http://www.wvoter-owned.org/news/2006/01_09.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tlpj.org/briefs/mountpi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apparently the company has rebranded under a new name.  Should the article be thus moved?  No comment on whether the company seems to be using an Orwellian euphemism to describe "coal" as "metallurgical products". - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company now called "Arch Resources"