Talk:Chesapeake Energy

message: Why is Chesapeake based in Oklahoma? That makes no sense. --AW (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Found, and added to the article. The founder just likes the Chesapeake. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Name?

message: I'm concerned about the new editor (laurabauer, I believe).  All edits by this user have been to the Chesapeake article, and the edits basically turned the page into a PR sheet for the company.  I'm hesitant to reverse the edits because they do update some information, but there is also a lot of collateral damage in terms of turning the page into a Chesapeake promo.  Chicken Wing (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, she is Chesapeake's Supervisor of Publications: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/laura-bauer/a/83b/713 She has made recent edits and deleted citations based on facts and sound references. Only reason she appears to have made the edits is because they put Chesapeake in negatively light, even though true. She is claiming a recent report by SAIC as being independent, yet Louis A. Simpson is a Director for both Chesapeake and SAIC. He accepted the position with Chesapeake in January 2011, although he may not have actually come aboard until June 2011http://www.chk.com/news/articles/pressreleases/01-24-11%20simpson%20-%20final.pdf. The report and study was still being conducted through June-July 2011, while he was a Director for both companies. He is still a Director for both companies as of today, I also cited a direct e-mail from Jim Gipson, Chesapeake's Director of Media Relations, with full header and whois information showing it came from Chesapeake and his e-mail address. This e-mail stated the report was not independent and never characterized as such, yet it is being marketed as such throughout their Web site and by their PR people like Laura Bauer. She removed this content stating it was not properly sourced because she apparently does not understand how e-mail and the Internet works. How is an exact quote from Chesapeake's very own Director of Media Relations considered not properly sourced? 209.74.45.21 (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am a Chesapeake representative, something I obviously have not attempted to hide. I am checking into the statements you’ve made to determine their validity. My objective is to ensure statements made about the company are true and verifiable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.64.3 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks legit to me. Simple enough to talk to or call John to verify. Certainly their network and his account was not hacked. Badmon4ward (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that concern over a year ago.  Since then I had looked her up and noticed she does, in fact, work for Chesapeake.  As a matter of full disclosure, my wife used to work at Chesapeake.  While I think Bauer's edits seem biased at times, I also have to say that there are multiple IP address editors, possibly all the same real-life person, who seem to be editing the article solely for the purpose of adding even the most trivial of negative publicity regarding Chesapeake.  Surely, there is some middle ground.  This is an encyclopedia article, not a chronology of sins, big and small.  Chicken Wing (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As an addendum, an e-mail would probably not be a very good source for Wikipedia.  The best sources are third-party, reliable sources.  It's not to say that the e-mail isn't accurate, it's just not easily verifiable and to some extent might represent original research / original synthesis.  Chicken Wing (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That e-mail is easily verifiable and it shows it was sent from Chesapeake's network. You may consider the negative publicity trivial, but everything she deleted was referenced from newspapers. If their PR people put out lies and irrelevant tid-bits, it's really no different, except the negative is true and their tid-bits are just PR fluff. The e-mail source was only posted to disprove their lies about the report, which they continually edited, and still state as being independent on their own Web site. For some, Wikipedia is the only outlet to truths. The actions of their PR people show everyone that they do not want anyone to know the truth. The report being conducted by a company that is directed by a Chesapeake board member is an ethics violation based on SAIC's own code of conduct. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but an e-mail just isn't considered a reliable source.  It is considered original research, especially in the context that you have used it.  You are basically "synthesizing" several sources, the e-mail combined with published material, to create an argument.  That's original research.  If the e-mail had been quoted in a respected journalistic publication, that would be different.  Another issue is that chronicling every fine, lawsuit, spill, or negative incident involving Chesapeake is not what an encyclopedia is for.  It doesn't matter how well-sourced all the incidents are.  Posting every single one of them gives undue weight to the issue.  Please see WP:SOURCES, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:SOAP.  Chicken Wing (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't chronicle every fine, lawsuit, or spill (someone else did), but I do believe that it is important information and should probably be changed to their environmental and safety record, similar to BP. I believe such events are more important than mentioning being featured in Forbes or on Mad Money. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

text:  You or someone else deleted content about the thousands of gallons of fracking fluid that was spilled, which is the reason why Maryland is suing your company. What you are referencing is only the initial report. The final report and testing was still being conducted throughout June and July while he was a Director as shown here: http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Documents/Final_Water_Well_Redacted.pdf  The report itself is dated and signed July while he was a Director for both companies. He accepted the position in January 2011. I and others have been urging newspapers and citizens to report on this, so you may have your third-party verifiable resource in the future, although it may be difficult, since Chesapeake funds most of the media in areas it is drilling in. The report your company posted is not relevant as it is not independent, and Louis A. Simpson stands to benefit from it. Also, the e-mail was provided to me by a third party, so it is not original research and is verifiable by IP and message ID. 209.74.45.21 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bauer editor 

message: I think the use of "toxic, hazardous" is a bit overstated.  While methanol is pretty dangerous, the other chemical doesn't appear to be exceptionally so, and the two adjectives make it seem pretty dire.  Perhaps we can compromise and just say "hazardous?" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me 209.74.45.21 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the fine is reasonable to include.  My initial reaction to the Ponzi scheme story is to not include it, especially since it's not a Ponzi scheme, but I'll have to look at the sources more in-depth before I form a final opinion about that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section discussion

message: So, after giving the article an initial copyediting passthrough, I removed to instances of the formulation "According to x,(citation) so and so happened" in favor of "so and so happened(citation)".  I was hesitant to make this change, as both instances noted that the source used was one published by Chesapeake itself; I figured that the citation is enough evidence for that, but in light of the COI/neutrality issues in this article, I would like to get a second opinion on this edit. Thanks, Writ Keeper (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those edits look good, Writ Keeper. The "according to" was superfluous and in danger of using weasel words. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of According to...

message: In full disclosure, I work for Chesapeake’s Communications Department, and I understand that my edits will be held to a higher scrutiny. My objective is not to promote the company on this page, but protect it against posts that do not comply with Wikipedia’s purpose as an online encyclopedia. The changes made are indicated here and are according to Wikipedia rules.  
Change “revealed” to “stated.”
WP:NPOV This was not a revelation as this information has been publically available for several years and published in the company’s proxy. Reuters simply chose to write about it now. 
Removed “for an unusual corporate perk.” WP:NPOV: This is an editorial comment on the writer’s interpretation of this perk. Needs validation before describing as an “unusual corporate perk.”
Removed “The revelation of these loan practices caused. ”  This statement violates the WP:NOR requirement in that it is an assumption/speculation that this article caused the stock to fall. By removing this phrase, the reader can draw his or her own conclusions. Also included the dramatic change in natural gas pricing from April 3-18, which also could affect CHK’s stock.
Added sentence pointing to company’s rebuttal to make it balanced and indicate that there is an opposing viewpoint, WP: Balance.
Creativejuice (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the company rebuttal, however, I removed the highly speculative statements regarding the price of natural gas a possible main cause for sudden one day stock price decline as natural gas has been low for a while now and didn't just fall steeply on that very day to justify such a decline. Even it did, it would still be speculation. I reworded the sentence to state that the price declined on the day the Reuters article was published without stating that the article was the reason for it or including any speculation on the part that gas prices played. So now it is just the vanilla fact that the stock fell on the day the article was published and nothing more. TheLou75 (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Additionally, it looks like another editor who has made substantial edits to this article may also be working for Chesapeake's Communication Department. There's a string of edits from August 2011 to October 2011 which match the same pattern of the self confirmed employee of Chesapeake's communications dept. 144.126.147.227 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CEO Borrowing Practices 

message: Where is all the stuff that took place last years with Icahn and the proxy battles and all that which has essentially forced the CEO out in addition to his being forced to step down from the chairmanship of the company and be replaced by the former chairman of ConocoPhillips? Shouldn't that be included here? There must be 1,000 newspaper articles on it... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: His exit is noted at the end of the history section, but you can expand it if you feel it is not given its due weight.  Chicken Wing (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proxy battles & Carl Icahn?