Talk:Eastman Chemical Company/Archives/2013

Environmental record section

Please do not delete other editors' work without first discussing it on the talk page. The section in question is factual and verifiable. Cyrusc 14:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the ER section. First of all, the information celebrating Eastman has no citation (I'm not doubting some sort of source exists, but it shouldn't be posted without substantiation). Second, I'm not sure which information should come first -- the fact of Eastman's status as one of the globe's largest polluters, or the fact that they've adopted an "ethic" of sustainability. It seems to border on spin to begin with a positive commitment instead of a negative reality. Thoughts? Benzocane 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that the criticism should come first, followed by the company's response (joining Responsible Care). That seems like a natural flow of information. Both paragraphs are fairly short and so there's probably not a problem with people only reading the criticism and not the response. Totnesmartin 10:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Generous empoyees

Their website says they have "generous employees".[1] Is this a euphemism? And if so, what for? Totnesmartin 09:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably just self advertising. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of that on this article. Seems to be just the WP environmental taskforce, and various Eastman employees. I'll go and bring this up at the business & finance Wikiproject actually. Totnesmartin 17:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with other wiki pages

It seems that standard items that attempt to answer the who, what, where, when, why and how questions are being deleted. Other corporations have similar types of content on Wikipedia.

The products/markets that Eastman serves were added. This was immediately deleted by OhanaUnited as "advertising by the company". I respectfully disagree that this was "advertising". It answered the "what" question of exactly what Eastman produces. To make the information more usable, it was tied to specific industry segments. Otherwise, a big group of chemical names would likely not be very usable to people who are trying to learn about Eastman. The information did not cite Eastman as the "best" or "greatest" producer of these items. It didn't specify items by brand that use materials from Eastman. It simply indicated what Eastman manufactures and how those products fit into other industries. Further, the information certainly did not warrant being universally deleted. The history shows that Orlady added some of it back shortly after OhanaUnited made the deletions.

If the issue was wording, that could have been modified, and the basic content could have been kept. I have been hesitant to 'undo' the changes as I don't want to offend anyone or violate a Wikipedia policy.

Most recently, the Board of Directors, Corporate Officers and Manufacturing Locations were added. Again, within a matter of hours, OhanaUnited removed the information about Board of Directors and Corporate Officers. Look at Dow Chemical or Lyondell Chemical. You'll find the same type of information. It simply answers the "who" question that one would expect from an encyclopedic type of entry. I did 'undo' this change because it is valid information. OhanaUnited noted that the people listed were 'former' directors, but that is not true. All are current. Some are formerly associated with other companies as many of them may have retired from their primary industry positions.

If I am missing a point, please provide some feedback. Otherwise, I believe that answering the key questions of Who? What? When? Where? Why? and How? is valid Wikipedia content, and I will continue to add this information in an effort to provide a more complete overview. Thanks.

Mbmcmillan 13:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:NOT. From your editing history, it seems like you're only interested in editing this article and this raises the concern that you're pushing POV. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a new Wikipedia editor. This is the first of the areas where I have taken an interest. Before you make suppositions about my motives, how about providing logic for your deletions. I have YET to see any reasonable evidence that the information I posted is inappropriate or out of the ordinary in comparison with other wiki pages. Mbmcmillan 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can tell me why those names are notable, then it will stay. It's not my job to proof them non-notable. Also, any unvertified information can be removed on the spot as per Wikipedia policy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A link has been posted in the references section to verify the information. Further, this information is notable because Eastman Chemical is a publicly held company and subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that requires transparency in corporate governance structure. Mbmcmillan 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eastman Logo.gif

Image:Eastman Logo.gif 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 06:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, fairuse rationale added. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

PNG logo replaced with cleaner SVG version. Fair Use Rationale added. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Revenue?

It states in the article that Eastman's revenue is 1.737 USD. Are we missing some zeroes or what? Should that be 1.737 billion dollars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.127.38 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point! That number was unsourced, and was added to the infobox by an anonymous user who did not leave an edit summary. I deleted it from the infobox. Better to have no information than to have dubious content. --Orlady (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated External Link

I have updated the dead external link to the ACS National Historic Chemical Landmarks program and added wiki links to those pages. I am the program coordinator of the ACS-NHCL program. KLindblom (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Eastman and Solutia pages

I would like to propose that Solutia be merged into Eastman Chemical Company. Solutia is a chemical company that was purchased by Eastman in 2012. The company now exists as a subsidiary of Eastman. I believe the merging of Solutia into the Eastman page will not cause problems as far as article size/length. I would like to have feedback from other contributors about this recommendation. Thank you.Rivertales (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Rivertales

I oppose this merger. Solutia and Eastman are distinct companies with distinct histories, so they are separate topics that deserve separate articles. Obviously, both articles should describe Solutia's current status as a subsidiary of Eastman. --Orlady (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)