Talk:Dow Chemical Company

New Corporate Structure
Is anyone able to confirm that Down Chemical Company is a subsidiary of the new Dow Inc? From everything I've read, Dow Chemical Company merged with DuPont and was spun off as Dow Inc and the name Dow Chemical Company no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aztex82 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We're actually discussing merging Dow Chemical and Dow Inc into a single article (see below) InvadingInvader (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Merging with Dow Inc.
So the current article for Dow Chemical's parent (Dow Inc.) is extremely short, only containing corporate information. A merger was last proposed in 2019 but no responses on this talk page occurred since then. I think given the size of Dow Inc's article, and considering that Dow Inc is only a parent company and not in a situation like Volkswagen where it owns multiple brands, I believe a merger of some type should occur. As for the name of the article, either title works. "Dow Inc." is the name of the company and it's pretty short in terms of names, but "Dow Chemical Company" is more descriptive and will reduce any confusion between Dow Chemical and Dow Jones given that Dow often is also a shortened form of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger Despite having the same name, they are two completely separate companies. See how we have treated the identically parallel case of DuPont (1802–2017)/DuPont.  The answer is to improve both articles, which I will put in some work on (though Dow Inc. will be necessity be shorter because of its shorter corporate history). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After a few months, it does still seem like that the two articles would be better as merged. Haven't seen too much improvement to both articles personally, and comparison to DuPont is WP:OSE. DuPont's history and articles seems to be much longer and detailed, and Dow comparatively doesn't seem to have a need to be split, especially compared to other corporations which have split articles like the various articles on the incarnations of CBS and Viacom. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merger. Legal structures notwithstanding, it's the same company. Just as we don't have two separate articles for General Motors even though it's technically not the same company from before the 2009 packaged bankruptcy. Or one article for the Arena Football League despite it having been rescued from bankruptcy. Now there was no bankruptcy here, but a the continuous operation despite the legal corporate changes are analogous. That's the thrust of the proposal; articles on companies are about the whole institution, not just the legal entity. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that the new article be titled Dow Chemical Company (or Dow Chemical if editors would prefer so), as while Dow Inc. is the formal name of the company, it's too confusing with other Dow-named things (especially both the Dow Jones index and the Dow Jones subsidiary of NewsCorp) which wouldn't be adequately solved by disambiguating templates placed at the top of the article. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merger: Since Dow Inc. is merely a holding company, its article is likely to be a WP:PERMASTUB in its current state due to lack of WP:SIGCOV on it, even from reliable sources. Per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:FAILCORP, content found in such articles should be added to another relevant article, which would be Dow Chemical Company (this article) in this case. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merger: SEC filings of Dow Inc and The Dow Chemical Company show that their balance sheets and statements of income are nearly identical. This confirms that Dow Inc is a holding company even though the companies are technically different. It can therefore easily be discussed in a header about corporate structure in the article The Dow Chemical Company (possibly renamed). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Acquisitions and mergers should be in their own section
The history section is extremely lengthy as it is, and the acquisitions and mergers listed throughout further congests the section and disrupts the flow of the article. These should probably be moved to their own dedicated “acquisitions and mergers” section. Emilyofjane (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)