Talk:Caterpillar Inc.

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.

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)

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)

Management/Ownership

It's puzzling to see that detailed discussion of ownership is cut off for any period after about the 1950's. Who actually runs this company today, and what political background do they hail from? are questions I would like to see addressed. Also the recent closure of the London, Ontario plant needs a competent and objective appraisal by someone in the know. Rumor has it that the entire fiasco was a set-up by Caterpillar from the getgo. All in all, the article reads more like a company web page than an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthotox (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

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. Tewfik^Talk 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. Tewfik^Talk 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. Tewfik^Talk 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)

I came here to comment about patents, not Israel. But I'm amazed that its inclusion is controversial - for good or ill, for me it is the first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions the company.Major_Clanger (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"an American who was killed by a Caterpillar tractor"?

Can someone fix this? It is impossible to be killed BY a tractor. A tractor has no will and can not kill anyone. You can not be c-killed BY a gun either. You can only be killed WITH a gun by a person. This type of wrong phrasing is typical. I don't know by whom this person was killed, and if someone does, feel free to state who it was and why he use a tractor to to do it, but don't tell me a tractor killed a person. That is just ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.223.54 (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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. Tewfik^Talk 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)

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. Tewfik^Talk 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)

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)

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)}}}

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)

I've made a suggestion to remove some of the stuff described as greenwash, plus tidy that section. See section 21 below.87.102.2.132 (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Invention of Caterpillar tracks

Cat did not invent tracks they (Best and Holt) "shrewdly" bought 2 patents to the designs and Holt registered the name "caterpillar". the implication that Cat also invented the tank is stretching it as Richard Hornsby & Sons who they bought the design off had demonstrated a Steam tracked tractorHorsby ntractor to the British army before world war one. Which the army then turned down, latter Holt crawler tractors were supplied to the army. (see various other wikipedia articles). POV of article a bit biased see Eric C Orlemanns various books on Caterpillar eg Caterpillar Chronicle ISBN 0-7603-0667-2 has details of the Lombard hauler that Best bought the design to. - BulldozerD11 talk 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)(sig adjusted by User:BulldozerD11, forgot to sign).

Holt patented "contiuous track" Dec 1907, tested his first track type tractor Nov 24, 1904 and patented the name Caterpillar in March 1905 140.141.170.8 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Product list

since other Mfg's, have product lists seperate from the main page, like- List of International Harvester vehicles maybe this one should do likewise.Brian in denver (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of products on the page is only short and current 'policy' (as implied by some editors removing red link entries) is only to have products with articles on the page (a few are actually redirects to the main article.) so separating out is not an issue yet. It generally occurs when lists become overweight in an article, or some one creates a comprehensive list. It currently serves the purpose of linking to related articles on individual products. Some of the linked articles are poorly laid out or referenced. (and possibly copied from elseware judging by the lack of spaces after full stops (periods).

I'm developing a comprehensive list of Cat vehicles over at Tractor & Construction Plant Wiki, with summary data on models. It can then be copied here once referenced and in a format that avoids the Deletion & non notable claims department. The main text is based on this article, but is being expanded based on referenced sources. The list is designed to link to articles on all product groups in more detail (hence red links),. Once data like engines and production dates and numbers are gathered its going into a table format.

The list is available under GDFL and CC by SA 3.0 licences to be copied to Wikipedia. The Wikia can also accept material that does not fit with Wikipedia's Encyclopedia policy guide lines for content. i.e Notability, lists etc. but must be correct and not Copy Vio material, as well as fit the Wikia aims. If anyone wishes to help develop the list or other Tractor and Plant (Engineering Vehicle) articles and lists please join in at Tractor Wiki - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, makes sense, I was just trying to sort out the army G-numbers, any idea what the differance is between a regular tractor, and an ordnance tractor.Brian in denver (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Main Cat article would benefit from a section on the military versions, with info on the differences noted, as some early models were purely built to government specs according to one of my books. Holt 75 and 120 were supplied to Britain in WW 1 (2 are known to survive). Other prototypes for Military use were built and a very futuristic looking missile launcher based on the Challenger rubber trac system in the 1980s (prototype ?). A General military version section would also balance the overweight Israeli Bulldozer section. (would just suggest not having red link lists), but just listing models, by G number order with Cat model No. and date produced numbers bought etc if known. A lot of the WW II models were standard I think from what little i've seen, with some addapted for beach landing with flotation skirts added.

The whole article layout needs a re working IMO as it dose not flow logicaly. I may add a table and dates etc to summaries the models that are here with articles at some stage. But Keep adding abit to the individual models every so often to expand them, but realy i need to write the other missing models for my project first. -BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts on CAT inc. page

(I've moved this message by 78.20.129.137 from my talk page to this comment page)

Look, if you want the section in, then write in such a way that it makes sense and doesn't completely destroy the logic of the section.

I don't understand why you insist on undoing my reversion. The section was fine as it was, and any addition should make it BETTER, not WORSE.

So in that logic I find the addition to be disruptive rather than constructive. If you want it back in, why don't you start a discussion about it instead of reverting my edits without and constructive argument! [--78.20.129.137]

Calm down, take some time out, and read some of the Wikipedia rules.

Remember that when you clicked on the tab "Edit this page," you got the message:

Please note:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

Also take a look at WP:OWN.

The rule in Wikipedia is WP:PRESERVE. The presumption is in keeping material in (and improving it), not deleting it. If you want to delete it, the burden of proof is on you to explain why it should be deleted.

I'm going to ignore your violation of that rule right now until you've had time to explain yourself.

You should also know that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors disagree with you. (And Bidgee is a complete stranger to me.) You have an obligation to at least explain to us why you want to delete it, and listen to our reasons for keeping it in.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason. Simply saying that it's WORSE isn't a reason.

I believe that paragraph belongs in there because it summarizes an important Caterpillar labor dispute. The New York Times thought it was important enough to write a story about it. Caterpillar is very controversial in the labor movement, because the unions believe Caterpillar is using unfair attacks to defeat unions. That's part of the story. Wikipedia must be WP:NPOV -- no exceptions. This is a possibly unflattering view of Caterpillar that is part of Caterpillar's story and should be kept in the article.

I don't agree with you that the section should be kept in chronological order. Normal writing style is to summarize the point at the beginning. Read any newspaper story. That goes back to the Greeks. Aristotle said, you don't start the story of the Trojan war with the judgment of Paris.

Besides, the whole section, with its chronological order, tends to justify Caterpillar's position, which violates WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would a chronological account of the events be biased towards Caterpillar? If an objective chronological account DOES, as you say, "tend to justify Caterpillar's position" then maybe that is because it is a position that was justifiable to begin with. In that case changing the order just to avoid that "tendency for justification" in itself is a violation of WP:NPOV in the sense that it counters objectivity.

Moreover, the added section is at best additional detail to the paragraph later in the section. Discussing the union conflicts in the 90s... That is where it should be located if anywhere...

Are you saying that it belongs in the section on labor problems, but it belong at the bottom? --Nbauman (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

3 things:

1) The part that says :"and forced the union to accept worse terms than were found elsewhere in the industry" is NOT in the source, read the article, it's not in there.

2) I find in most accounts of history of anything that a chronological account gives the best guarantee of objectivity.

3) The section already mentions the strike in the 90's "Caterpillar suffered another long labor disagreement, locking out union workers in the 1990s and hiring what it termed "permanent replacements." Mentioning this again in a separate paragraph of the same section gives the impression that it referees to 2 different occasions, which it doesn't.

Oh and a 4th:

4) As it stand now the section mentions the same strike even 3 times...

Caterpillar fought the United Auto Workers in a five-month strike, threatened to replace its entire unionized work force, and forced the union to accept worse terms than were found elsewhere in the industry.[30]

Caterpillar suffered another long labor disagreement, locking out union workers in the 1990s and hiring what it termed "permanent replacements."

Caterpillar fought the United Auto Workers in a five-month strike, threatened to replace its entire unionized work force.[33]

The first and third of which refer to the same source. (78.20.129.223 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

The latest edit [15:12, 13 July 2009 Nbauman (talk | contribs) (44,960 bytes) (→Labor problems: Added additional supporting material from NYT article, in response to comments in Talk.)] is definitely an improvement. But there is still the issue of the 3 references to the same strike in one small section. (78.20.129.223 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

My last change: (→Labor problems: Removed redundant refferences to the same even and reordered the section to a logical whole...) (undo) (Tag: references removed) shoudl fix the issues while keeping the content you added... I hope this is now to your liking... If not, in order not to start another edit war, please post here instead of just reverting me... (78.20.129.223 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

History and Patents

The article on Continuous tracks is inconsistent with this one on the early history, mentioning an earlier patent. Can an expert sort them out?Major_Clanger (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Right to work laws

This is not a labor right. Right to work is a business right to hire workers not in unions. If workers of a company don't have to join a union, the company will just bid for workers: You want to join a union, no job for you. You don't want to join a union, you get a job. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Excised material

Copied here for sorting wheat from chaf before integrating former back into article:

The 1936 movie Earthworm TractorsEarthworm Tractors is based on stories in The Saturday Evening Post about Caterpillar. The movie premiered in Peoria.

The Fighting Seabees,The Fighting Seabees a movie starring John Wayne: Navy Seabees (construction battalions) use Caterpillar tractors during World War II

The Grapes of Wrath Film, screenplay by Nunnally Johnson: "They come. They come and pushed me off. They come with the cats ... the Caterpillar tractors."

Smokey and the Bandit, a movie: the character "Snowman" wears a "Cat Diesel Power" hat in his role as a "typical southern trucker" [http://www.bandittransamclub.com/Snowman.jpg

Black Dog, a movie: "Ain't nothing like a Caterpillar engine..."

The exosuit in Aliens was custom built by Caterpillar for the movie and carried its logo.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen — Three Caterpillar vehicles are used for the alternate modes of three Constructicons: Long Haul (dump truck), Rampage (D9 bulldozer), and Scrapper (front loader).

In literature

The Grapes of Wrath, a book by John Steinbeck

Killdozer!, a 1944 short story by Theodore Sturgeon about a Caterpillar D7 that is "possessed" by an alien intelligence.

The Monkey Wrench Gang, a book by Edward Abbey: "They crawled all over a Caterpillar D-9A, world's greatest bulldozer, the idol of all highwaymen. Put so much sand in the crankcase..."

In art

"Lipstick (Ascending) on Caterpillar Tracks" Sculpture (1969) by Swedish sculptor Claes Oldenburg "Lipstick (Ascending) on Caterpillar Tracks"

In auto racing

From 1999 until 2008 they sponsored the various cars of Bill Davis Racing, scoring four wins, including two majors (2001 Mountain Dew Southern 500, 2002 Daytona 500). Beginning in 2009, the sponsorship will move to Richard Childress Racing's 31 car, driven by Jeff Burton. Ironically, it was Burton's brother Ward who scored all four of Caterpillar's NASCAR wins, including the two majors. Burton needs only to win the two restrictor-plate majors to finish off a Career Grand Slam."Caterpillar to replace AT&T as Burton's sponsor in 2009"

Sponsor for the Top Fuel Dragster driven by Rod Fuller (NHRA)

Sponsored the Australian V8 Supercar teams 00 Motorpsort/Gibson Racing and Ford Performance Racing

In sports

As of the 2008/2009 Guinness Premiership Rugby season (UK), Caterpillar Inc. are the official shirt sponsors of Leicester Tigers RUFC.

In music

The Stockholm-based Indie pop/rock band Shout Out Louds's song "Time Left for Love", in their 2007 album Our Ill Wills, mentions Caterpillar in the song lyrics "I lost all my friends in an accident/I couldn't believe what happened/The rumours said it was a serial killer/but they got hit by a caterpillar.Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MaK Motoren GmbH

Hello. I linked to Maschinenbau Kiel which has some history of Krupp/MaK in Kiel. In the same section of that table - it says - Renamed "MaK Motoren GmbH - I'm not sure about this - it seems to have been called "Caterpillar Motoren GmbH & Co. KG" , and now they seem to be using "CATERPILLAR MARINE POWER SYSTEMS" , but I can't find dates. Can someone check this.Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Caterpillar_Inc.#Notable_achievements_and_controversies

With the exception of the israel tractor stuff, and the "emmision's defeat devices" and the "Illinois Governor's Pollution Prevention Awards" plus some mention of war contributions stuff the rest of that section seems (uncharitably) 'corporate fluff' - all big corporations donate to charity/do other stuff that makes them appear great (or bad) - but is it really notable..

Also the claim that caterpillar was someway involved in inventing the tank or tank tracks is a bit far fetched - they bought patent rights, and then made a business out of it - I can't see anything more to this.

Also stuff like "Caterpillar built its first Russian facility.." or "Currently under construction is the $125M Caterpillar Suzhou" is not a notable acchievement - it should/could be mentioned in a section about foreign investments/company growth - it's normal expansion - not an achievement in the real sense - as it's what companies normally do

Also the big list of cat machines (many red linked) - can it be removed - and made into a 'list of caterpillar products' type article - there aren't equivalent lists for cat engines.

Could someone look at that section, and tidy it (or can I)? Does what I've said above seem reasonable? Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the list to List of Caterpillar Inc. machines - I can't imagine any objection to this. I've also attempted to tidy the "ups and downs section" [1] I've renamed it [[2]] - The General Motors gives some ideas as how to cover this. In the end section Caterpillar_Inc.#Other I've placed items that I think are not really relevant, or should be in other sections - particularily the information about expansion overseas, and takeovers of other companies should be moved - it's also partially duplicated in the company acquisitions part of the article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dripping Bias

Scabs? Right-to-work-for-less? I've decided to finally customize my search provider to exclude all wikipedia.org results. The constant left-wing bias makes you worse than useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.101.161 (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding changes to IDF/Caterpillar section

With respect to the previously contentious discussions of this topic, I have updated this section. It was missing one key fact, needed attention to reducing/eliminating use of the passive voice and was a little confusing. I have attempted to maintain the approximate length of the section and believe I have included all ideas/facts that were present prior to the change. I attempted to use factual descriptions and neutral language in order to avoid unnecessary controversy or insult. With respect to all viewpoints - Ch Th Jo (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

66% 44% = 110%?

Hay guise, i don't lyk really know how wikipedia works but i totally noticed lyk an error in the distribution section. it says that 66% of cat sales are in the US and 44% are overseas.

personally i love cats but omg 110% cat is totally lyk the wrong amount of cat! lmao!

Love from 118.208.87.216 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Elliott!

Discussion of Inclusion of information not about Caterpillar Inc. (Mirenco)

I'm moving the "Mirenco" section here to the talk page for discussion - the text is preserved below. This article is about Caterpillar Inc., not about individual deals between third party suppliers and one or a few regional Caterpillar dealers. If either Mirenco or Whayne Supply meet notability guidelines, then I'd suggest an article be created and this information added to it. Unless or until Mirenco strikes a deal with Caterpillar Inc. directly, this information does not belong in this article. I see no evidence that Caterpillar Inc. was a party to this agreement and Mirenco is not even mentioned anywhere on the caterpillar.com site. Obivously one editor, acting in good faith, thought this article was the perfect place for this information. I disagree. What do others think? Ch Th Jo (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mirenco, Inc. technology" In January 2009, Whayne Supply, the Caterpillar dealer in Kentucky and Southern Indiana, entered an agreement with Mirenco, Inc. to expand the use of Mirenco technology through the network of Caterpillar dealers. See Mirenco, Inc. Enters Into An Exclusive North American Sales And Marketing Agreement With Whayne Supply Co., Inc. Mirenco Inc. is an Iowa-based company dedicated to reducing emissions, fuel consumption, and maintenance costs of heavy duty diesel vehicles. Since signing the agreement, Whayne supply has added four additional dealers to the Mirenco network. Overall, this represents a small but increasing percentage of Caterpillar Inc.

Use by the IDF

The section on the use of CAT products by the IDF is seriously WP:UNDUE in this article, taking up a significant portion, when it is a relatively minor controversy. Unless anyone objects, I will soon remove most of it from here, moving some into the section on defence products that we already have. It is all already covered in Rachel Corrie which is where it should be. SmartSE (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to call it a minor controversy, however I do think that the current treatment is too long. Personally I feel that a section between a third and a half as long as the present one would be appropriate.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, maybe that wasn't the best wording, but it is a very minor part of what Caterpillar as a whole do. The main problem I have with it is having a whole section on it, which is why I want to move it into a different section, along with the rest of the defence info. Are you ok with that? SmartSE (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I feel that it should remain as a separate section, in the current position at the end of the article, albeit considerably reduced. I am open to a change of section name however. For me this is a fairly independent issue and I don't think integration with the 'Caterpillar Defence Products' section is appropriate as the products used by the IDF - or most of them at least - were not produced by that part of the business. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why's that? Is it really that important for a reader wanting to gain an understanding of Cat? As well as the Corrie article there's similar content at Armored_bulldozer#Israeli_usage and IDF Caterpillar D9 - WP:SUMMARY tells us that we should summarise what's in those articles and link to them. SmartSE (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In my view it is significant enough in the context of Caterpillar to warrant that. What is left here will in fact be a summary, with greater detail elsewhere.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I support a dramatic reduction of this material in this particular article because as it appears now, it is a violation of our policies and guidelines regarding undue weight and the neutral point of view. I believe that this controversy is notable, though not significant compared to the entire history of Caterpillar Inc. and that it is covered appropriately at Rachel Corrie, Armored bulldozer, IDF Caterpillar D9 and House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, all far more appropriate places for this material than the main Caterpillar Inc. article. This material about an activist campaign does not belong in such depth and detail in a neutrally written profile of a major corporation. The descriptions of a lawsuit that was dismissed and then rejected on appeal is stunningly inappropriate, since every major corporation is sued all the time for many reasons and unsuccessful suits are simply not worthy of discussion in such an article, due to the issue of undue weight. Let me remind all editors that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. To use Wikipedia in such a fashion in support of interest group activism is a serious violation of the neutral point of view. A secondary point is that several of the references used to support this content are dead links, raising questions of verifiability. Trim this content from this particular article to an appropriate minimum, and instead link to other, more appropriate articles discussing this controversy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remove obvious (and classic) case of UNDO. Two courts have thrown out the suit against Cat. Cat Inc's involvement in this is matter is trivial (selling equipment to the U.S. government). Shareholder "actions" can be initiated by a shareholder with only one share and so isn't notable on its own. The section in this article is obviously the work of activists violating NPOV. Activists by definition have an agenda that stands in conflict with Wikipedia's "neutral" policy. As a result, per COI they must declare their conflict on their user page and on every talk page of every article they edit where a conflict of interest exists. Per COI, they should limit their article editing to neutral, non-controversial facts. They must restrict all other article editing to talk pages and other forums where they may submit recommendations for change for neutral editors to consider. Editors with a conflict of interest who fail to follow Wikipedia's guidelines may find themselves banned from editing. Rklawton (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed most of it, leaving a short summary which links to the relevant articles. In the interests of transparency, I should note that myself, Cullen328 and Rklawton had mentioned this off wiki on Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement as an example of where an article on a company was not NPOV. I didn't ask them to comment though, or tell them that I had suggested removing it. SmartSE (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Note I was the one who brought this up in CREWE as an example of persistent POV editing. I have no ties or interest in Cat - just an interest in removing POV stuff whenever I find it. Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the move of this content to 'Caterpillar Defence Products', per my earlier comments above. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But you haven't actually explained why it is significant - wholesale reverting of my attempt to make the article more neutral isn't a particularly helpful action. Regarding where I placed it WP:CRITICISM suggests that incorporating information throughout the article is considerably better than having a separate section. Do you have any suggestion to where it should belong? SmartSE (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not there, per comments above. The History section would make more sense to me. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why there? That's about the history of the company, not its products. It's about machinery, so it should be somewhere within that section surely? SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That section is for describing the company's range of products and services, not for the addition of random content. For me this content should either remain in a separate section (my preference) or be in the history section, it is not about a description of products but relates to the company itself.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

On the basis that this information is about the company itself, the information should be removed entirely as it isn't significant (per UNDO). One way we know it's not material to Caterpillar is that two courts threw out the complaint. If you want to bash Caterpillar, why not cite cases where Caterpillar actually lost or made a deal? Rklawton (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I would actually prefer it to be removed completely rather than shoe-horned into an irrelevant section in an attempt to hide it away. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? It's not about hiding anything, just giving it due weight relative to everything else written about Cat. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Giving it due weight - and I have said that I support a two-thirds reduction in the amount of content on this topic - does not equate to or require moving it into an inappropriate place. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

He moved it to the section dealing with the product that was involved in the incident. If it's appropriate in the article at all, that's where it belongs. Rklawton (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, many of the applicable products were not produced by Caterpillar Defence Products. In any case this is not relevant to the product line but to the company. We have article sections for a reason. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Shall we just remove it all then? SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wont revert it.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I gather there's been some discussion on this already, but I don't understand why there's no reference to the association of Cat with Israel. I can understand why people might disagree, but - to me - it's self-evident that this is significant. I'm not asking for a huge essay, but surely it needs a couple of sentences and a link to whatever the most relevant page is. Before I add this, is that going to cause problems? Gamesh (Gil) (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The consensus reached in February was rather strange and I agree that it is due to have a brief mention about the IDF in the article. This shows what I left in the article back then, but was removed soon after. That might be a sensible place to start if you want to reintroduce something. SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks about right to me. I've read through the comments, and I can't say I really understand the issue. I might leave it for a couple of days, and then suggest something to reinstate. Gamesh (Gil) (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Revisited

As this has come up again, it looks like more discussion might be necessary. I have explained the problems with the content that keeps on being added here: User_talk:Anne_born#Caterpillar. SmartSE (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Under paragraph "Expansion..." "The first machine is scheduled for production in March 2009."

Re: "The first machine is scheduled for production in March 2009." Does anybody know if this over 3-years out-of-date statement came to pass? Paulburnett (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)== RayGo ==

This page is a redirect of RayGo but there's no mention of the company here anywhere. Either a RayGo page needs to be re-created or there needs to be some mention of it here. 139.55.207.98 (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Caterpillar Inc enters smartphone market

Caterpillar Inc entered the smartphone market by releasing a rugged android phone called CAT B15. It is now followed by another phone called CAT B25. I think this should be mentioned in this article. Also they have started selling mobile accessories like cases for smartphones. This info is missing from the article, it should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadly437 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Presbyterian Church in USA divest holdings because of Israel

From New York Times:[3]

Presbyterians vote to divest holdings i Caterpillar to pressure Israel. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted on Friday at its general convention to divest from three companies that it says supply Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. The vote, by a count of 310 to 303, was watched closely in Washington and Jerusalem and by Palestinians as a sign of momentum for a movement to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to end the occupation. The companies the church has targeted for divestment are Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solutions. The church has about $21 million invested in them, a spokeswoman said.
The church says Caterpillar supplies products to Israel that are used to destroy Palestinian homes.--85.166.156.247 (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Caterpillar DIESEL Engine

Main article has one short section on Caterpillar Engines, then a follow on section for Caterpillar Defense Products. These are subsections to a section labeled as Business Lines. I propose either a new section - or change the Caterpillar Engines section to Caterpillar Diesel Engines. a batch of what is labeled as Caterpillar Defense Products is sole about the Caterpillar Diesel Engines in use in military vessels. I would say over the last 20 years Caterpillar market share of medium to large diesel engines has vastly increased - especially in the marine environment/usage - Ships - both military and civilian.Unknown to me- I wonder if market share has also increasaed for railroad locomotives. Facilities usage of Catapillar has probably increased as emergency diesel generator in the medium to large size. Wfoj3 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Environmental Stewardship

I removed the following as irrelevant and non NPOV.

October 2013. Caterpillar division under criminal indictment - Progress Rail Services, wholly and solely owned by Caterpillar, accused of stealing from Union Pacific (UP). Under this indictment, allegedly sought to destroy the evidence by dumping it from barges off of Long Beach, California. This theft of services has allegedly happened before. This dumping, if found to be true, is extremely detrimental to the environment off our beloved California Shores. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/us-caterpillar-investigation-filing-idUSBRE9A013R20131101>

Preserving it here in case someone wants to edit it and reinsert appropriately somewhere? — M3TAinfo (view) 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caterpillar Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205030801/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/manufacturing/machinery-equipment-manufacturing/8087464-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/machinery-equipment-manufacturing/8087464-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caterpillar Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081225095935/http://www.mde.state.md.us:80/Programs/AirPrograms/Mobile_Sources/dieselemmiscontrolprog/workshop/participants/index.asp to http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/AirPrograms/Mobile_Sources/dieselemmiscontrolprog/workshop/participants/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Caterpillar Inc.. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.caterpillar.com/cda/files/2607135/7/Cat Inc. 4Q2010 Final.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cat.com/about-cat
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/18230/000001823010000092/form10k_2009.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/snapshots/81.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/lehman/chrono.html?company=caterpillar_tractor_co
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107161102/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FI73L00.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FI73L00.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-04-20/business/8501230692_1_sundstrand-caterpillar-solar-turbines
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509162049/http://articles.marketwatch.com/2008-06-12/news/30755922_1_caterpillar-construction-and-mining-equipment-cummins to http://articles.marketwatch.com/2008-06-12/news/30755922_1_caterpillar-construction-and-mining-equipment-cummins
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606230749/http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/05/13/bulldozers/index.html?pn=3 to http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/05/13/bulldozers/index.html?pn=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1733505920070917
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefreelibrary.com/403.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catwatches.co.uk/history.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shopcaterpillar.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/1996/06/24/story1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Caterpillar Inc.. 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/20120803071138/http://www.wastehandling.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&id=47C5DE563581487B9E4394B939909F9E&tier=4 to http://www.wastehandling.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&id=47C5DE563581487B9E4394B939909F9E&tier=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017162514/http://www.kipnotes.com/AgriculturalMachinery.htm to http://www.kipnotes.com/AgriculturalMachinery.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719235759/https://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=2 to http://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Caterpillar Inc.. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.caterpillar.com/cda/files/2607135/7/Cat+Inc.+4Q2010+Final.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37321&x=7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204121517/http://www.historicroadways.co.uk/s-007.htm to http://www.historicroadways.co.uk/s-007.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719235730/https://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=3 to http://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719235829/https://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=6 to http://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107161102/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_8_66/ai_64991321 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_8_66/ai_64991321
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603105131/http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/on-the-right-track-twin-city-signal.html to http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/on-the-right-track-twin-city-signal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711015908/http://www.forconstructionpros.com/online/Acquisition-Positions-Caterpillar-to-Deliver-Subsurface-Imaging-and-Mapping-Services/1FCP16840 to http://www.forconstructionpros.com/online/Acquisition-Positions-Caterpillar-to-Deliver-Subsurface-Imaging-and-Mapping-Services/1FCP16840
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226200321/http://unitedkingdom.cat.com/cda/layout?m=105662 to http://unitedkingdom.cat.com/cda/layout?m=105662&x=7
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nysun.com/national/caterpillar-escapes-liability-for-israeli/62872/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003231833/http://www.usaengage.org/archives/studies/append2.html to http://www.usaengage.org/archives/studies/append2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612091803/http://www.dnr.state.il.us/PUBAFFAIRS/2007/Oct/illinois.html to http://dnr.state.il.us/PUBAFFAIRS/2007/Oct/illinois.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wbcsd.org/web/about/members.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5u7teKGad?url=http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/unarmored-halftracks/unarmored-half-tracks.html to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/unarmored-halftracks/unarmored-half-tracks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Noel Penny Turbines

In case it is of use to editors of this article, I have jsts enhanced a short article on Noel Penny Turbines of England, which, in c1972 was contracted by Caterpillar Inc to design engines for its heavy vehicles. A publication entitled "The 'nearly' engine" contains details of this relationship. I am not suffciently acquanted with the subject to make direct edits to this article. I hope this may be of use to someone. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caterpillar Inc.. 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/20090605024347/http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=5EF6A8877FAD4AA98C813E6732B6C85A&AudID=6EF55B05AA694954939FA7B6FB605DAB to http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=5EF6A8877FAD4AA98C813E6732B6C85A&AudID=6EF55B05AA694954939FA7B6FB605DAB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Caterpillar in Argentina

There seems to be an edit war in progress at "Caterpillar in Argentina". According to Wikipedia:COPYLINKS "It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time" so what is the problem? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The line you quote is about internetarchive itself and says that internetarchive is itself not a COPYLINK problem; this does not address any issues that might be present in the website that is archived there. The potential problem with posts at camionargentino.blogspot.com.ar and pesadosargentinos.blogspot.com.ar is that they host scans of newspaper articles and other copyrighted pieces, and transcriptions of some of them. The sites have a copyright disclaimer that says (via google translate) "It is allowed the free reproduction of the material here present (used WITHOUT PURPOSE OF PROFIT), partially and totally, being necessary and fundamental the mention of the site and the author of the article. Thank you very much. *** The images that are attached to the articles are merely illustrative, and may not be the originals of the vehicle in question (or correspond to the equivalent of other markets / countries) and merely serve to identify them." but it is not clear to me that this is sufficient for Wikipedia. I have asked admins to review this. If it is fine under policy, then it is fine. But until we are sure please do not post these links. I also wonder if these are WP:RS but that is a different question that can be addressed after the COPYLINK question is resolved. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Headquarters location

Shouldn't the headquarters still be listed as Peoria, Illinois and not Irving, Texas? While it is true that the company decided to leave Illinois for it's headquarters They haven't officially packed up yet to go to Irving so shouldn't it be changed since it is not official?--12.29.116.64 (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Jhendrix86 (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Agree it shouldn't be Irving, TX yet but they haven't been HQ'd in Peoria in a long time. They have been HQ'd in Deerfield, Illinois for a handful of years now. It should be listed as Deerfield, Illinois

Edit Request – Corrections Lead and Board of Directors sections

NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Caterpillar, Inc. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. I’m proposing the following edits to correct outdated information in the lead section and current board of directors. Please let me know of any questions as you review. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done The new hq was already mentioned in the lead, so I tweaked it a bit. Ptrnext (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ptrnext Thanks! Jon Gray (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

--- Lead

• Given the change in headquarters location from Deerfield, Ill. to Irving, Texas, I propose adding the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph of the lead:

In June 2022, Caterpillar announced the move of its headquarters from Deerfield, Ill. to Irving, Texas. Current board of directors

• The board of directors list in the article is outdated (“As of December 2018”). Propose updating that date to read “June 2022” and removing the following name, for accuracy:

Daniel M. Dickinson

• Please also add the following name:

David W. MacLennan

References

Edit Request – Corrected/Updated Information

NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Caterpillar, Inc. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. Please let me know of any questions as you review. Thanks for your time and consideration! Jon Gray (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Infobox

• Propose updating the “Founder” field to add Benjamin Holt, one of the company’s co-founders, alongside C.L. Best.

 Done Lead

• Caterpillar’s Fortune 500 and Global Fortune 500 rankings are from 2018. The most recent rankings (2022) for the company are Fortune 500 - #73 and Global Fortune 500 - #265.I propose updating this sentence to reflect the most recent rankings available.

 Done Business Lines

• In the second sentence, it’s stated that Caterpillar began reporting financials from five business segments in 2011. That information has changed – the company now has four reportable business segments – 1) construction industries, 2) resource industries, 3) energy & transportation and 4) financial products. Propose updating the sentence to update the year to 2022, the number of reportable business segments and the correct list of four reportable segments.

 Done Financial products and brand licensing

• Propose replacing the existing line under this section with the following to 1) provide more information about this element of the company’s business and 2) offer a secondary source to support:

Caterpillar provides financing and insurance services to customers via Cat Financial and Caterpillar Insurance Services, both of which are subsidiaries of Caterpillar, Inc. Cat Financial provides retail and wholesale financing for Caterpillar products and services, in addition to other equipment provided or facilitated by the company. The company also generates income through the licensing of the Caterpillar and CAT trademarks and logos.  Done Operations - Manufacturing

• I propose removing the “Major facilities in Europe” and “Major facilities in Latin America” lists. The lists as they currently stand are outdated and unsourced, so I think removal altogether will help address those issues and streamline the section a bit.

 Done

Controversies – Tax Deferral Techniques

• Lastly, I propose adding the following sentence to the end of this section that reflects the conclusion of the matter:

In January 2023, Caterpillar reached a settlement with the Internal Revenue Service and was not ordered to pay any penalties.  Done

References

 Done Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Johannes Maximilian Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request – Corrections to Board of Directors section

NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Caterpillar, Inc. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. Please let me know of any questions as you review – necessary sourcing is below. Thanks for your consideration. Jon Gray (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Current board of directors

• The board of directors list in the article is outdated (“As of October 2022”). Propose updating that date to read “September 2023” and adjusting the section’s content as follows:

Please remove:

• Kelly A. Ayotte
• Edward B. Rust, Jr.
• Miles D. White

Please add:

• James Fish, Jr.
• Judith Marks

Question for other reviewers. What's the consensus about even having a board of directors section in articles? Does WP:NOTDIR apply? I see IBM#Board and shareholders and Microsoft#Board of directors sourced using primary sources, seemingly against sourcing guidelines. Is there an exception made if the board member is notable and has their own article? STEMinfo (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@STEMinfo I agree that WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to a degree, but that consensus for these types of the lists has shown that names which are independently notable can be included using a primary source—which in the cases of employment, are the best sources to use. But unless Fish and Marks have their own Wikipedia pages, they should not be added.  Spintendo  03:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Reply 22-SEP-2023

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. Y The requested names to be removed were deleted.
2. N The requested names to be added were not added. Please provide the Wikilinks for these names.

• Additionally, the COI editor is gently reminded to place their signature at the end of their talk page posts.

Regards,  Spintendo  18:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Thanks, and noted on the positioning of the signature. I'll do that moving forward. Jon Gray (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Apologies for the follow-on message, but I also noticed the date in that section still reads "October 2022." Could you please update to "September 2023." I'm also happy to make that edit if I have your permission. Will you please let me know how you'd prefer to handle? Thanks. Jon Gray (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes