Talk:Owens Corning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

The statement that Owens Corning is the only company to gain a trademark on a color may not be true. Mattel apparently has a trademark for Barbie Pink. On the official Barbie website [1] appears "The likeness of the Barbie doll, character, silhouette and accessory icons, the color "Barbie pink", the stylized "B" and other trademarks designated by ® and TM are U.S. trademarks of Mattel, Inc..."

Owens Corning...[edit]

This sounds a heck of a lot like an advertisement for the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja860231 (talkcontribs) 03:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, the environmental section was clearly biased; I've since improved that somewhat. More work is still needed on the rest of the article, and I've tagged it. Superm401 - Talk 19:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This article sounds a lot like the advert for U-North in the movie Michael Clayton. Eje211 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the environmental section, the current status of the article (dated March 3, 10:20 AM eastern time) states that Owens Corning emitted the hazardous greenhouse gas from a facilty, but does not give any details. The sources cited say nothing about this. They only say Owens Corning began construction on a facility for which they had requested permission to emit HCFC-142b at an expected rate of 283 tons per year. The cited article states that it is illegal to begin construction before obtaining the permit, and that is what Owens Corning had done. They began construction before the permit was obtained. It appears that the claim in this wiki article is false. I suggest this be corrected or citation provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.26.72 (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

The article currently reads like a hatchet job on this company. The history of a $5B company consists of three asbestos lawsuits? Surely they have done something else between their founding and now. Is this the best Wikipedia can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.139.28 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, and have placed an undue tag. The asbestos lawsuit section, being placed inside the history section with very little else, gives it undue weight. The section should be moved, and the history needs to be otherwise expanded. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Owens Corning Logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Owens Corning Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)