Talk:Dow Chemical Company

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" ([1]). 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 [2]) 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 [3] government site can be used for anything; 2) This site [4] 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 [5] 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 [6] 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dow Chemical Company. 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/20061103134319/http://www.michiganwalkoffame.com/dow.asp to http://www.michiganwalkoffame.com/dow.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071022062729/http://www.publicintegrity.org/superfund/Company.aspx?act=10312 to http://www.publicintegrity.org/superfund/Company.aspx?act=10312

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 04:21, 18 October 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dow Chemical Company. 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/20061103134319/http://www.michiganwalkoffame.com/dow.asp to http://www.michiganwalkoffame.com/dow.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090112002749/http://news.dow.com:80/dow_news/corporate/2009/20090106a.htm to http://news.dow.com/dow_news/corporate/2009/20090106a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071022062729/http://www.publicintegrity.org/superfund/Company.aspx?act=10312 to http://www.publicintegrity.org/superfund/Company.aspx?act=10312

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 19:45, 5 January 2016 (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)