Talk:Dow Chemical Company/Archive 1

Napalm

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Dow came under heavy fire (no pun intended) for producing napalm during the Vietnam war. That seems to be more relevant to the article than the Bohpal disaster. Descendall 10:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree! I was thinking the same thing. I especially like how the article says, "Dow's sales exceeded $1 billion in 1964, $2 billion in 1971, and $10 billion in 1980" without mentioning that the super-fast growth over this period was partially due to the fact that is was selling so much Napalm to the U.S. government.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.187.84 (talk • contribs)

Does anybody have real data about how much sales of Napalm were? I suspect that they are a miniscule portion of the $1 billion sales, and by 1980 I believe Dow no longer had the napalm contract Charles W. Bash 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dow made naplam in one small plant in Torrance CA employing only ten people and that plant never made more than $5 million worth of napalm per year. The source for this is Reference 9 in the main article, p 352. Silverchemist 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do your home work if you are going to make such harsh statements. In response to you not understanding why Bhopal is even mentioned, and your difficulty in finding any information; perhaps a reminder of the 20,000 deaths, one half million injured and current abandoned pesticide factory will help answer your question. Dow then (after acquiring Union Carbide)set their eyes on going back to West Bengal. There is a current law suit in India with a list of grievous offenses in which Dow has successfully avoided because the Indian Government has failed in their efforts to even get them to appear. The very people that were so injured are protesting their return. Understandably March 2008 L.Eyeing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.120.105 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The section on "Napalm" is highly suspect, it contains strange (unencyclopedic?) phrasings, possibly sensationalistic details, and has no direct citations, even for quotes that should be directly attributable. 68.39.174.238 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove this?

An anonymous user has added this section. I reverted an earlier version of this, pointing out the tenuous connection, its relative unimportance and its lack of references, but it came back (albeit written better). I didn't want a revert war, and I figured we could leave it up for a few days while it is topical, but I would like to remove it for the following reasons:

• For any massive multinational corporation of this size, at any time there must be thousands of people pissed off with the company, and Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for people to rant on about the evils of this or that company. I'm not saying Dow is perfect or not perfect, I just think this is an encyclopedia, not AdBusters.
• The complaint the (now former) governor at this college has is that this person "used to be at Dow". I think it the person was currently high-up in Dow this story would carry much more weight.
• I couldn't find any reference the other day on the UWBangor website or in a Google search - I should have thought if the story was at all notable, the university or a local newspaper would be forced to include a mention of it. If the Welsh papers don't consider it worth mentioning why should we? Why won't the person give us a reference on the story?
• The story is certainly not important enough to appear before the "Overview" section!

I think this article should focus on this hugely important company, not on one guy who was upset because another guy used to work at this company at some time in the past (we think, we don't know). Walkerma 03:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

QUOTE: "Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for people to rant on about the evils of this or that company." This sounds fair enough, but the practical result of this editing policy will probably be a pro-corporation bias on Wikipedia. Like it or not, *most* corporations can be criticized (from a little to a whole lot) for their lack of social responsibility. Although I agree that a specific criticism of a particular corporation must build up some steam before it gets included on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.187.84 (talk • contribs)

Yes, there should definitely be some room for criticism of Dow, and Napalm is a particularly nasty skeleton in the cupboard. It is from quite some time ago, which reduces its importance IMHO, but it's still recent enough to warrant inclusion, especially as it appears there were protests. We did have an extensive section on Dow controversies, which was removed in toto by some anonymous user (this page gets a lot of that!). I have restored nearly of that material, pruned down a little (we don't need to know which colleges saw protests 40 years ago on this very broad page!) - I don't think it's totally neutral, but much of it is well referenced and it's much better than having no mention.

By the way, the section I wanted removing (above) was nothing to do with Napalm, it was just polemic, and it was removed (by someone else) a day or two after I posted this request. You should be very careful, though, about making assertions like, "growth over this period was mainly due to...napalm" or even implying that. My guess is that it was a very small part of Dow's profits - not because I think they are so ethical, but simply that there was a lot more polyethylene and Saran Wrap produced than napalm. To link the profit growth to napalm seems absurd to me - don't forget that the chemical industry produces virtually all of the materials used in our modern society, and Dow is one of the biggest players - so you'd need to cite some very reputable sources before you could claim that Dow's growth came mainly from selling napalm rather than from selling Styrofoam and plastic grocery bags. Walkerma 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. BTW, I actually said "partially due," not "mainly due." I may have said "mainly due" originally, but it only remained there for about 60 seconds, tops.

Environmental and human rights abuses

The section currently titled "controversies" should read "Environmental and human rights abuses", which is more accurate. Panchhee

Subsidiaries

Dow Chemicals has a lot of wholly and partially owned subsidiaries. Instead of an entire section devoted to a subsidiary(as in Dow Corning), it is better to have a list of subsidiaries. Panchhee

I agree that there should be a list of Dow's various subsidiaries. A suggestion for those with the trepidation to complete such task: Perhaps they can be sorted according to their industry? Redland19 (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I added such a section a few weeks back, including Internal Links to companies which currently have Wiki articles. I'm open to feedback. Plhofmei (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Management

does anyone know when, a australian by the name of Geffory S. Norris was in charrge of the australian sector of DOW Chemicals? and a beleive that Andrew N. Liveris was hired in 1976 in Australia to work for DOW by Geff--Aebischer 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The yes men

why is there no topic mentioning the run-ins that the Dow chemical company had with the THE YES MEN? they even managed to get on BBC as dow chemical's representatives offering to finally own up to their mistakes. I also read that it lead to a brief crash in the stock prices of DOW Chemical. 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Their run-ins are mentioned in the entry for the Yes men. As the Yes Men are a group with an agenda all their own, they should not be included. This would minimize bias on this page.Redland19 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Paradise!

This is one of the most one-sided articles I have ever read--at least for a major entry. Shameful. 65.80.248.158 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Environmental record

The current section on Dow's impact on the environment needs work. It simply says that Dow is linked to the 96 of the worst toxic dump sites in the US and is trying to avoid clean-up costs. The cited reference (same one as in the current version) shows that 95 of those are shared sites, 15 have been listed by EPA as cleaned up and 69 have all the infrastructure and plans for cleanup in place. Nowhere does it mention any resistance to cleanup. I suggest that the following be used in place of the current paragraph: Silverchemist 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dow Chemical is currently ranked tenth among corporations in a measure of toxicity of airborne pollutants emitted in the United States, releasing more than 14 million pounds of toxins per year into American air. (The statistics given are not correlated to the volume of production.) According to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents Dow has some responsibility for 96 of the United States' worst Superfund toxic waste dumps, in tenth place by number of sites. One of these, a mining site, is listed as the sole responsibility of Dow: all the rest are shared with numerous other companies. Fifteen sites have been listed by the EPA as finalized (cleaned up) and 69 are listed as "construction complete", meaning that all required plans and equipment for cleanup are in place.

Jbacu1985 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC) I agree with the proposed paragraph. Also note that Dow and other industry participants payed into the Superfund until the end of 1995. Congress declined to extend the tax past that year.

RFC

I'd like the community to comment as to if my edits (some including content removal) today to this article help with the question of neutrality. I have explained my edits in the edit descriptions and in the talk segment immediately above. Given all that, should any edits be undone? Which? Why? Danke schön! Plhofmei (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also see the talk segment above "The Bhopal Disaster -- TENUOUS Connection". This line of thinking (which I agree with) is my justification for removing a large part of the Bhopal related content. Plhofmei (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're trying to do. I did a similar cleanup a couple of years ago, when I worked with Paul Hanson on adding some genuine content (product line, financial stuff, interview with Liveris). The problem is that people gradually add the adversarial things back in over time; most people know far more about some controversial product Dow made 40 years ago than what they actually make now. To my mind, it's similar to the trivia problem - people write about what they know, and more people read AdBusters than read Chemical & Engineering News. At the same time, we have had several edits from Dow domains trying to simply erase every word of the controversial content, which is wrong also. Thanks for your efforts; the only solution is to have fair-minded people such as yourself actively editing here. I'm busy on other things right now, but I'll try to get time to help you on this in 2-3 weeks. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify: I don't want to imply that controversies are unimportant, they should definitely be discussed. I merely think that they should be kept in balance, in the same way that an article on the US government shouldn't merely list all the terrible things they have done! Walkerma (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is generally not good to have a separate "Controversies" section. That is just an invitation to editors to add any bit of negative information they can find. I spent a lot of time earlier this year moving the controversies into the history section, where they can be put into proper perspective with state of the company at the time. WP:STRUCTURE (a subset of WP:NPOV) agrees that separting out sections based on their POV is usually a bad idea. I strongly suggest that the controversy section be removed and the information placed back into the history section. In my opinion, the only way this article is going to attain NPOV is for the article to be fleshed out so that is also shows the good things that the company has accomplished. There have been several books written about Dow and many articles written; the info is there, but there is so much of it that this could be a pretty big task. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How would you suggest ordering the events then? By date? Oldest events first, regardless of positive or negative? I'm in favor of your suggestion as long as there is some rhyme or reason as to why things are ordered.Plhofmei (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd previously organized it by date, so that the article had a chronological history section (with many obvious gaps, as there isn't much in the article that isn't criticism right now). This is what it looked like in April [1]. This article apparently needs a pretty close watch, as I see that lots of "criticism" has been added since then. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point about having a Controversies section - it will attract additions with POV problems (just as would a section titled "Ways in which Dow is wonderful"). Walkerma (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The revisions have been made. Does anyone else have ideas for further revisions to this page to make it more neutral? Any objections to the edits I made today? Can the neutrality tag be removed provided the page remains under close supervision?Plhofmei (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC comment. Good work. Several companies have this problem. Trimming the Union Carbide disaster to a link was quite appropriate. However, I echo the concerns about having a controversies section. Cool Hand Luke 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Great feedback, so far. I'll be working in the coming week to reverse the "Controversies" section back out and order it by chronological history (as best as can be done) with the oldest events first. Is there any text/sections that should go completely? What of the Dow Corning section? Should we just mention it is a joint venture with Corning Incorporated, link to the main article and leave it at that? Does Dow Corning really deserve a full segment? Also, I'm thinking segment 5.1 2007 Dismissals belongs under the History segment, thoughts? One last thing, the Environmental Record section could be better organized, any thoughts there?Plhofmei (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag removed

I'm going out on a limb and saying the article in its current state represents a reasonable neutral point of view. As such I am removing the tag. Those disagreeing please discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plhofmei (talk • contribs) 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A lot of the article does not appear to be written in a neutral tone, paying special attention to the section titled "Advocacy" which appears to be a collection of links, whose content is not used throughout the article, and only purpose seems to be to attack the company. I'd like some outside views and opinions. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment An RFC is not appropriate here. You might awant to take it to the associated WikiProjects talk page, request a peer review or ask an editor personally--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start a PR instead. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Aminopyralid

Recently there was a bit concern in the UK about the herbicide Aminopyralid. The website of DowChemical mentions it as well, I think the wikipedia article should refer to it too, briefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I have added a sentence along those lines with a reference to the major newspaper article which broke this story in the UK. --Jeremy Young (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OUTLOOK

In corporate-speak, outlook is generally issued each quarter, and it can often change drastically. I don't think it's an appropriate section here, and should be removed or drastically edited and re-labeled.

Also, I agree that some of the language and thrust in this article is non-neutral and/or appears to have been written by the Dow Public Relations department. I don't at all see why a request for comment is inappropriate. Calamitybrook (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed an RFC is appropriate and there are two open above. Please feel free to comment on them. I concur the segment "Outlook" should be retitled. Perhaps "Current Long-term Outlook". What are your thoughts?Plhofmei (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If properly maintained an "Outlook" section is a good thing. If the section has not been updated/maintained in 18+ months, I would say it needs to be seriously evaluated. As you said, Corporate plans are subject to winds of change that are impacted by many factors.Plhofmei (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Good

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/ENV_148211.html "'Dow Water Solutions provides millions of people in the Middle East with a sustainable source of fresh water,' said Zuhair Allawi, commercial director for Dow Chemical India, Middle East & Africa (IMEA)." How come we hear so much about how the company has caused harm and we hear very little about how the company is making lives better and saving lives? Without these products, these people most likely would end up drinking dirty/contaminated water. Many would die from it. How about someone write about the lives Dow Chemical has saved and is saving today, instead of always the people killed over 20 years ago by a partner Dow Chemical had nothing to do with back then?Plhofmei (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Comet Zombie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dow Inc and Dow Chemical Page Merge

Hey there everyone, I believe we should merge the Dow Inc and Dow chemical pages into one. Dow Chemical is now Dow Inc. Dow inc is the Giant Corporation, while Dow Chemical is a sub underneath it.

We should merge these for stock tickers, and clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.186.146 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bhopal Disaster -- TENUOUS Connection

Let me see if I understand the timeline as expressed here:

1984 - The disaster occurs, at a UCIL plant which, at this time, has absolutely no connection to Dow.

1994 - After reaching a $470 million settlement, Union Carbide sells off UCIL to another Indian company.

2001 - Dow purchases Union Carbide, which already settled more than seven years previously, and also sold off the responsible subsidiary more than seven years previously.

Can someone please tell me why this is even included in this entry? Other than the usual crew of corporation-haters, how does buying a company seventeen years after a disaster, and seven years after it has legally settled and divested itself of its own responsible subsidiary, justify the phrasing "negative publicity from the incident continues to be a substantial issue for Dow"?

Seems to me that this should be either clarified or deleted. --08:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Tavernknight

---

Good question. You are right that this is not clear, and much of it shouldn't be in this article (but rather in Bhopal Disaster or Union Carbide India, Limited). However, it pertains to Dow for the following reasons:

1. Dow owns not only UCIL's assets and rights, but also its obligations.
2. Arguably, UCIL did not fulfil its obligations. Many victims and survivors have not received appropriate compensation.
3. Moreover, the problem is still ongoing under Dow's responsibility: "A November 2004 BBC investigation confirmed that the contamination is still active".

Common Man 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the connection is really not explained very well, and the final sentence to that "It is worthy to note..." reads like a bad conclusion to a novel that was tacked on. I suggest that it be drastically cut down and I am going to try and do that now... 68.39.174.238 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

This report by Amnesty International holds Dow Chemicals responsible for the Bhopal disaster. AFAIK, there has been no independent study which absolves Dow or UCC of the responsibility for the Bhopal disaster. Panchhee 19:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Union Carbide sold all of its shares (50.9%) in Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL) to McLeod Russel Ltd of Calcutta, which in turn belonged to the Williamson Magor Group. UCIL was renamed Eveready Industries India, Ltd and is "the flagship company" of the B.M. Khaitan Group. All of this occurred prior to Dow buying Union Carbide. Eveready Industries is the company which bought a majority share of the Bhopal plant, presumably its liabilities as well as assets, yet I have never heard mention of its liability for any part of the Bhopal disaster. Why is Dow treated so differently from Eveready? I have my suspicions, but I won't speculate. Can anyone explain the difference in treatment to me? Silverchemist 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

---

"As of 2005, a summons for Dow Chemical to appear in court to explain why it has failed to present its full subsidiary has been put on hold by a notoriously corrupt judge."

Who is the judge?

Jbacu1985 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC) The Amnesty International site now indicates that this 'Action is closed' (The link given above is no longer attached.)

Hi guys,

It seems there is debate over whether Eveready or Dow owns the company responsible for the Bhopal disaster. In the mean time I've added a mention here, but I will further research this to ensure the information doesn't belong in the Eveready article instead.

InternetMeme (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dow Corning

Shouldn't the Dow Corning information, including the section on breast implants, be in the Dow Corning article rather than the Dow article? Davost 12:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There has been at least one court decsision that "pierces the corporate veil" between Dow Corning and Dow, and imposing liability on Dow as well as Dow Corning.--ukexpat 20:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's odd that there is no mention of Breast Implants on the page of Corning, Inc. 12.46.144.76 06:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Corning a completely separate company, nothing to do with Dow Corning other than the word Corning in the name? Walkerma 13:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's article, and Dow Corning's own website, Dow Corning is half owned by Dow Chemical and half by Corning Incorporated, so Corning and Dow should be treated equally.Silverchemist 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jbacu1985 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Per the 2005 10-K for The Dow Chemical Company filing "On October 6, 2005, all such cases then pending in the District Court against the Company were dismissed. Should cases involving Dow Corning’s breast implant and other silicone medical products be filed against the Company in the future, they will be accorded similar treatment." The Dow Chemical Company - 10-K Filing - 2005

Neutrality tag added

A lot of this article seems to be used to "bash" the company. While I (and many people) do not agree with a lot of the companies ways about some things, doesn't mean we can write a POV piece. Problems throughout the article. One thing that really stuck out to me is the "Advocacy" section. A collection of links only used to defame the company. How is that acceptable? If those links are going to be used to back up context within the article, okay, but Wikipedia is not a collection of links. - Rjd0060 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jbacu1985 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC) In addition to the "Advocacy" section, an number of other references point to advocacy/lobby group sites. It seems that this could be a concerted effort by lobby groups or members therein to add links to there websites to drum up traffic and improve their Google rankings. A suggestion is that the 'Advocacy' section be renamed 'Links to advocacy groups, lobbyists and hoaxes'.

I agree with that point, also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I made several changes to this article today (see history) in attempts to resolve the neutrality concerns of this article. What is the consensus on the article's current neutrality? May the tag be removed? What other segments need reworking? Plhofmei (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As Rjd0060 noted on my talk page, I did remove a good portion of the content related to Bhopal. The Bhopal disaster is more than adequately documented and it is referenced within this article. Dedicating 2 or 3 paragraphs of content to the topic within this article detracts from the neutrality of this article. Other's thoughts?Plhofmei (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, in an effort to distinguish all the negative events from the rest of the article I made a section entitled "Controversies" and moved all related topic to there. Plhofmei (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This article still seems quite baised. I know Dow Chemical is not a perfect company, but they have made many worthwhile contributions. This article seems to be a list of mistakes more than an actually informitave article. Also, several of the same negative events are repeated over and over again.74.126.10.23 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

None of their "worthwile contributions" even come close to the damage and destruction they have caused around the world. The article is not biased; it is merely an accurate reflection of the facts which speak for themselves. --386-DX (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Yes Men

Why isn't the Yes Men event found anywhere in this article? "By the time the original story was discredited, Dow's stock had declined in value by $2 billion." - Wikipedia (The Yes Men). Seems relevant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.146.22 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, this should be a significant event in the history of this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.166.85 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bhopal, again

In regard the recent The Times article here; if anyone has read it, I'd like to know what it alleges about Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin thanks for the interesting article. If I'm reading this right, it states that references to Bhopal were taken down on the Wiki Dow article? I don't see any indication of that. Also, the recent dust up concerning paid editing has (once again) addressed the issue of direct corporate editing. So I'm at a bit of a loss to understand exactly what The Times author is talking about. Gulbenk (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I found it at WP:VPM#Wiki wipes of multinational companies exposed, although I normally don't look at any of WP:VP. As I'm not a subscriber to The Times, I can't read specific allegations, so I'm not sure what they're talking about. That particular author seems to be an anti-internationalist, but there still should be some specifics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV style editing?

Junaji, under the frankly dishonest edit summary of "NPOV style editing", is trying to minimise problems in the "Environmental record" ([2]). I guess I'm obliged to attempt to talk here, though given J's pretty solid of never using the talk page (except for nonsense like [3]) I think its a waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits at Dow

(moved from my talk page by Formerly 98)

I note that you recently made several edits at the The Dow Chemical Co. in which you did some tagging and removal of negative company information. In the future please at least tag an item before you remove it or better yet attempt to find a source. I also note that the sections that give positive information about Dow remain without sources or poorly sourced, but they did not concern you. Your style of editing is a cause for concern. Gandydancer (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A $2M fine from 2003 in an article about a $55B company is WP:UNDUE. I don't know if you follow legal stories much, but a $2M fine is essentially a loss for Spitzer as undoubtedly spent more than this amount investigating the case. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No I don't follow legal stories much and was not aware that the fine cost more to investigate than the puny $2M fine. However I can read the source which states that it was the highest yet to that date which is significant and would not have been deleted by an unbiased editor. Never the less, even though your point sidesteps the issue rather than addressing it, it is interesting in that it points out exactly why environmental polluters just go right along polluting even though they know full well that they are breaking the law. From the source that I added: "Spitzer sued Dow for repeatedly violating a 1994 agreement with New York State prohibiting advertising touting the safety of its pesticide products. As part of the 1994 agreement, the company agreed to stop making claims that its products were "safe." However, an investigation by Spitzer's office found that almost immediately after the company entered into the agreement it once again began to make misleading safety claims in its print, video and internet advertising."

All that said, I'd like to see your source that states that the investigation cost more than the final fine to Dow. Site please? Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Fine to include, but please use the NYTimes article or another reliable source for the information, as WP:RS excludes the use of press releases. Also please note that neither the NYTimes nor the Attorney General's office is a WP:MEDRS compliant source for health related information, so the language needs to replace ""Pesticides are toxic substances that should be used with great caution. By misleading consumers about the potential dangers associated with the use of their products, Dow's ads may have endangered human health and the environment by encouraging people to use their products without proper care." with something about having violated their prior consent order agreeing not to advertise these products as safe. We can't make or quote a direct statement about the safety of these products without a MEDRS source, but it should be ok to say that they violated their prior agreement. Lastly, the NYTimes article explicitly includes a statement by the corporation that they settled merely to avoid court costs; this needs to be included for NPOV purposes. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, to be sure I understand you correctly. Working with the Environmental section: 1) No information from this [4] government site can be used for anything; 2) This site [5] is acceptable to make this statement: In 2007, the chemical industry trade association - the American Chemical Council - gave Dow an award of 'Exceptional Merit' in recognition of longstanding energy efficiency and conservation efforts. Between 1995 and 2005, Dow reduced energy intensity (BTU per pound produced) by 22 percent. This is equivalent to saving enough electricity to power eight million US homes for a year.[52]; 3) This site [6] is acceptable for this statement: The same year, Dow subsidiary, Dow Agrosciences, won a United Nations Montreal Protocol Innovators Award for its efforts in helping replace methyl bromide - a compound identified as contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. In addition, Dow Agrosciences won an EPA "Best of the Best" Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award.[53]; and 4) This site [7] is acceptable for this statement: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) named Dow as a 2008 Energy Star Partner of the Year for excellence in energy management and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.[54]. Is this correct? Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think its inadequately sourced, please just remove it. Its mostly bullshit PEACOCK content that doesnt belong here anyway. But I would appreciate it if we could stay focused on the article. I'm just as concerned about your editing style as you are about mine, but think it makes more sense to focus on individual edits than to criticize you personally or make insinuations Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I stated my concern about your editing on your talk page not on this article talk--it was your decision to move it here not mine, so please don't now complain about it. To repeat, yes it does concern me and it suggests bias in that you went through the article removing and tagging negative reporting regarding Dow's environmental record, while ignoring what even you now call "bullshit PEACOCK content" which is, incidentally, very poorly sourced.

I have replaced the NY site in which the attorney general discusses the incident which you removed in your edit and supplied a source for the new tag you added re largest penalty ever. Tagging rather than adding a source opens the information to removal in the future with the comment of "what's a mere 2 million?" whereas "the largest ever" is noteworthy. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes yes. I was not complaining of a Talk page violation, just making a general observation. I could equally well leave notes on your user page complaining of the extreme anti-corporate bias of your editing and your tendency to add negative material to articles and not positive, irrespective of their relative notability. I don't do that though, as I understand that your intentions are good, and that such notes would simply be viewed as an irritant. Perhaps you could consider the possibility that your notes have this same effect and no more???? Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't write the news, the press does--and as it turns out it is the bad news that comes to the attention of the press. When a corporation is involved in a notable incident our readers expect to see it included in their Wikipedia article. If you find me editing in a biased manner, feel free to leave a note on my page. Gandydancer (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough Gandy. And in my experience, I find far, far more poorly sourced negative material in corporate articles than positive. Which is why most of the stuff that I end up removing is the sort of stuff I removed here. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gandydancer and Formerly 98: As a formerly uninvolved third party, I have made some edits to the paragraph related to the $2 million fine. I won't be offended if somebody reverts them -- it is just my attempt to get to a neutral place.

I don't think that we can say this is WP:UNDUE simply on the basis of dollars. After all, even the maximum penalties which can be imposed by law are often very small compared to the bottom line of large businesses. We must examine the behavior that was alleged in order to determine if it warrants inclusion in an article. I have no further opinion about this.

Formerly 98 -- it would be much easier to side with you if you didn't appear to have some editorial slant yourself. You took out the attorney general's "victory lap" statement which Gandydancer had included, but you then inserted Dow's own self-exculpatory statement that it "had agreed to the penalty [only] to avoid a costly court battle." This is an encyclopedia; let's all cut the spin and stick to the facts.

What I kept:

"In 2003, Dow agreed to pay $2 million, the largest penalty ever in a pesticide case, to the state of New York for making illegal safety claims related to its pesticides. The New York Attorney General's Office stated that Dow AgroSciences had violated a 1994 agreement with the State of New York to stop advertisements making safety claims about its pesticide products."

I have left the references alone. In my opinion references could include both the NYT article and press releases from the attorney general's office linking to the court judgement. See the ongoing discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here.

- Regarding the word "illegal," I believe that it is appropriate in this case. First, this was not merely a private settlement of litigation between the parties: it was a judgement of the court (entered into with the consent of both parties, but a court judgement nonetheless) which ordered Dow to pay a "penalty" upon complaint of violation of various New York State laws. See the [Court Order_.]. No, the company did not expressly admit wrongdoing, but neither are you required to expressly "admit wrongdoing" when you pay a speeding ticket -- that doesn't make speeding legal. When a court orders the payment of a "penalty" (a word with legal significance) in the context of a violation of state law, the word "illegal" (literally "contrary to law") is perfectly appropriate. Notice that I am saying "illegal," not "false."

What I tossed:

- The attorney general's statement that "Pesticides are toxic substances that should be used with great caution," is in some sense a "sky is blue" statement, and in another sense is a meaningless over-generalization about a very large and diverse galaxy of chemicals. In any event, it really has nothing to do with Dow's "environmental record." So, we don't need to argue about it.

- The rest of the attorney general's statement ("By misleading consumers about the potential dangers . . . Dow's ads may have endangered human health and the environment . . .") doesn't really add much more. It is already implicit in the phrase "illegal safety claims." This is an encyclopedia: we don't need to listen to Elliot Spitzer taking victory laps.

- Dow's statement that it agreed to pay the fine only to avoid a costly court battle is run-of-the-mill PR spin which has no place in an encyclopedia. (Quite clever: it not only implies innocence, but implicitly blames the legal system itself.) I should start using that phrase -- when somebody asks me if I have ever paid a fine for speeding, I should reply, "Yes, but only to avoid a costly court battle."

I hope all find this to be a reasonable compromise. Xanthis (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Xanthis. The statement by the DOJ was excluded based on my belief that the source was not acceptable, while the Dow statement was referred to in a secondary source. But the current version seems an acceptable compromise. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Adjusted language slightly after further consideration. The DOJ version of events and Dow's are described back to back in secondary sources. Unclear to me why we would include the DOJ commentary and not include Dow's, given that the cited sources give them equal weight. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

suggested COI edits at Dow Corning

Hi, I've proposed some additions to Dow Corning on the article's Talk page, here. I'm not editing directly because I have a COI (I work for a communications firm that represents Dow Corning), but I wanted to give a heads up here in case anyone watching this page would be interested in taking a look. I'd be grateful for any feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Financial information should be from a consistent year

The financial information on the side is useless because each piece of data is from a different year. For example, it says they're making less revenue than profit, which isn't possible except that the numbers are from different years. If we can't find more recent numbers for the other data, we shouldn't advance the dated info for any of those financial numbers. 73.231.102.229 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit + update

Hello there! Just a heads-up I'll be performing a considerable copy edit of the article, as currently drafted in one of my sandboxes. Most edits involve tweaking language, updating information and, importantly, providing improved referencing throughout. Per usual, contact me if you have any comments. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I pasted my working draft just now after a few more tweaks. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent NY Times article on DuPont contamination by PFOA

Here is a recent article in the NY Times that goes into great detail about DuPont's chemical contamination of an area with PFOA. I think the content in that article is worthy of inclusion here.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare] by Nathaniel Rich, January 6, 2016.

Judging by the way the article is currently set up, i would think this would be another subheading just like Bhopal disaster or Dioxin contamination. SageRad (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Still no discussion here from other editors. I'm thinking that with the merger, this issue has to be at least mentioned on this page, similar to the Bhopal disaster because Dow merged with Union Carbide, who was responsible for that disaster. So it could use a section heading on the same level as "Bhopal disaster" and a brief description of the problem and DuPont's role. SageRad (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I did make an edit adding a section in the way i described above. I made it similar to the section on Bhopal disaster, naming the company connection and then "main" tag to the section of the DuPont article with the core content. I hope this makes sense to other editors. SageRad (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a good edit and compares to what we have done on other articles. Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits are unwarranted

The recent edits Only in Death are unwarranted. The article can and should cover both things which were deleted. Let's discuss this. SageRad (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

PFOA

PFOA is relevent here. It should not be totally omitted. Useful to the reader to know of existing liabilities. I had put a very short version of an account, with a link to the main article which is at the DuPont page. A merger has been announced, so the two companies are inextricably linked at this point, and this is relevant. If you wish to work with the language, or to be more specific than is possible in an edit reason, please be my guest. But at this point, i think this edit was unwarranted and i ask for clear explanation with full integrity to explain it, or else will find it to be against common sense and discussion here. I made discussion in the above section for some days before making this edit, explaining my reason, and nobody took me up on the discussion, and then i made the edit. Seems pro forma good editing to me. SageRad (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Bhopal disaster

This edit also seems to be counterproductive to me. You have deleted estimated death tolls and general costs involved. I find these things to be relevant. Dow has acquired Union Carbide and therefore acquired the liability and the legacy, as far as i am aware. We can discuss these things in good faith, but large scale paving of an article isn't my idea of good editing practice with a group of other editors involved. SageRad (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

To start: this cannot be discussed with you. You are topic banned from agricultural chemicals broadly construed. As per the article content, DOW are quite clearly a company who specialise in agricultural chemicals, and RE Bhopal - this was a chemical disaster that involved a chemical mainly used in fertiliser. You are not allowed to edit in this topic area.

However for anyone else: coatracking environmental concerns with one company into another companies article is non-neutral editing. Dow and Dupont are not merged yet. Info on past DuPont environmental concerns may be relevant on a combined Dow-Dupont article once the companies merge - I assume at that point someone will either create a new article on the new company, or attempt to merge the Dow-Dupont articles together. From experience and past convention it is likely this would end up as a third article with the Dow & Dupont articles covering the individual histories of the respective companies. Assuming this article is kept as a historical article of Dow prior to the merge, it wouldnt be valid here, would be at DuPont, and would be at an article after the merger.

RE Bhopal: The only reason Dow is even relevant is that activists are claiming Dow is responsible for the cleanup once it acquired Carbide many years later. Which is more than covered by the information included currently. Detailed info on the Bhopal disaster is available at the dedicated article and the article for Carbide (who were responsible for the problem).

Excessive info included above places undue weight on events that were entirely out of Dow's control and unrelated to them except very remotely. Its practically a textbook example of an attempt to skew an article to make a company look worse than it actually is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

PFOA liability is relevant to anyone who wants to know about Dow and it's current position. It's a big deal to DuPont and DuPont is a big deal to Dow. They're highly related, and a mention and redirect to main article seems worthwhile to me, and not "coatracking". SageRad (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger with Dupont

Currently, this section is essentially a repetition of DuPont#Merger_with_Dow. In some cases, its word for word copying. I propose that this section either be pointed DuPont#Merger_with_Dow and current text be removed. Any objections? Tale.Spin (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Agent Orange

The section covering Agent Orange said that Agent Orange contained dioxin when in fact dioxin was not an ingredient of Agent Orange. Dioxin was a contaminant that was a result of the manufacturing process. Therefore, I have changed this to "contaminated with" which correctly reflects the facts.

Magnolia677 has already reverted this edit once. So, would someone please check into this and see that I am correct on this issue. It is not my intention to defend Dow Chemical, only to defend the English language.

Tyrerj (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Out-of-date financials

I updated the board of directors, and I notice that the numbers for financial info are from 2011-13. Can someone help to bring things up to date? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since nobody has stepped up, I've taken a whack at this myself. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)