Talk:Olin Corporation

Morgan Hill, California fusee plant
Olin operated a fusee (highway flare) plant in Morgan Hill, California in the 1960s and 1970s, possibly into the 1980s, which was subsequently sold. It was operated as Standard Fusee Corp. for a few more years, then razed. Not long afterward, high levels of potassium perchlorate were discovered in groundwater, contaminating many private wells and some municipal wells in the the downstream "plume", whose origins were blamed on the fusee plant. Olin became involved in litigation with local residents and communities, and has to-date paid considerable sums in groundwater cleanup and remediation. This might be worth mentioning in the article if enough facts could be collected on the case. It should also be noted that United Technologies Corporation operated a research and testing facility a few miles to the north of Morgan Hill for many years, near Coyote, California, and some of the perchlorate contamination may have emanated from there, as well. Solid rocket fuel was mixed in large batches there and full-scale tests of the Titan III boosters was conducted there from the 1960s to the 1980s. Further, there have been suggestions that additional perchlorate in the soil may have come from over a century of farming and ranching operations in the area. However, Olin has borne the brunt of the blame for the situation. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 19:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Tone
User Burdlaw's edits from October 2010 are not neutral tone and present Olin's business and history in a negative manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.213.228.67 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Those edits were updated and rephrased in October 2011.--Burdlaw (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Logo
The logo linked to the article is actually the logo for a landscape architecture firm called OLIN, not Olin Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.79.156 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
NOTE: I am proposing this edit for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Olin Corporation. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines. I am submitting this edit request to propose revisions and additions to the article in hopes of making the article more accurate and complete. The edits are as follows in the box, sorted by section:


 * 1) Infobox
 * 2) *Remove Joseph D. Rupp as the Chairman of the Board and add the title under President & CEO John E. Fischer.
 * 3) *Under products, remove Copper Alloys and Sodium hydroxide (Olin no longer produces these), and add the following products: chlorine and caustic soda, vinyls, epoxies, chlorinated organics, bleach and hydrochloric acid.
 * 4) *Update the financial numbers in the infobox to reflect 2017 numbers per its 2017 annual report and Nasdaq :
 * 5) **Revenue: US$ 6.27 billion (2017)
 * 6) **Operating income: US$ 331 million (2017)
 * 7) **Net income: US$ 549.5 million (2017)
 * 8) **Total assets: US$ 9.22 billion (2017)
 * 9) **Total equity: US$ 2.75 billion (2017)
 * 10) *Update the number of employees estimate to ~6,200 (2017) – the number of employees hasn’t changed, just the year.
 * 11) Upfront Paragraph
 * 12) *Revise the first sentence to read: “The Olin Corporation is a global manufacturer and distributor of chemical products, as well as a U.S. manufacturer of ammunition.”
 * 13) History – Corporate Reduction
 * 14) *Remove the final sentence in the first paragraph, “Since then, the Olin Corporation has been shrinking (except for brief expansion in the early 1980s).” While the company has spun off or sold some of its divisions, it also acquired the Dow chlorine business in 2015.
 * 15) History – In the 21st Century
 * 16) *The last part of the first paragraph states that, “A maintenance building at the Winchester Ammunition Plant, in an isolated area of East Alton, burned and was a total loss on Sunday, February 9, 2014; the cause is under investigation, but no one was killed or injured. Seven area fire departments assisted in the response, but encountered heavy smoke and fire, according to East Alton Fire Chief Randy Nelson.” Based on this source, I’d argue to revise the section to read, “A maintenance building at the Winchester Ammunition Plant, in an isolated area of East Alton, burned and was a total loss on Sunday, February 9, 2014. The fire was caused by propane cylinders that exploded.”
 * 17) *The second paragraph of the section states that, “On March 27, 2015, Dow Chemical Company announced that it would spin off its chlorine and Epoxy businesses and merge them with the Olin Corporation, in a deal that would give Dow control of the Olin Corporation.” This statement is incorrect, as Olin acquired the Dow assets per the previously used story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, so the last part of the sentence (“in a deal that would give Dow control of the Olin Corporation”) should be removed.

Thank you for your consideration! Alec Voss (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply to edit request 28-NOV-2018
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.  Spintendo   22:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup
Content added by has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Copy-paste and Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Location
Olin was established in East Alton illinois not new York. And it's current corporate offices are located in the state louis suburb or Clayton Missouri. 2600:6C42:7400:308B:9536:89D2:38A1:858C (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hazardous lead
A recent from  shortened the lead of this article to only two sentences, removing a (sourced) summary of Olin Corporation's involvement in numerous chemical hazards. Given that this information has widespread coverage in the body of the article, I think that it deserves due weight in the lead as well. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 20:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that incidents and hazards should be summarised in the lead (per MOS:LEAD). The wording in the removed text is possibly awkward: Olin chemical plants frequently malfunction and pose a hazard to employees and nearby residents. It would be better to make a statement of fact, such as, "Accidents at Olin chemical plants have exposed employees and nearby residents to health hazards." (Past tense). It's also a little difficult to quickly determine how many or what kind of accidents, because the article is poorly organised. For example, the paragraph: The topic sentence of this paragraph makes me think it will be about a 2016 chlorine leak, but by the end of the paragraph we're talking about CEO succession in 2020. If the information were better organised, it would be easier to propose an even better summary for the lead (perhaps with more specific description of the exposures (ie, asbestos, chlorine leaks, superfund site, etc.) Larataguera (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article could use some significant reorganization. Given that they have released chlorine into the atmosphere three times in the last four years, I think that the present tense is appropriate, but I have added your past tense version. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 20:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree that present tense is appropriate, but I've learned that other editors probably don't. Thanks for replacing the information in the lead! Larataguera (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for why other editors probably don't? If it is just because the information could make the company look bad, then that sounds like an NPOV violation. If there is a local consensus among editors here that the present tense is appropriate, then I might change it. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 21:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's because it would make the company look bad. I think that a statement about present risk is inherently a little bit subjective. It's not possible to argue much about whether disasters have occurred in the past. It is  possible to argue about whether these past disasters mean that a facility poses a risk in the present. I also haven't carefully reviewed the sources. Do the sources say there is a present risk? Because if they do, I think you have a very strong argument for stating a present risk. If they don't, I would just give specific details about past disasters. (For example, if there has been a leak three times in four years, say that – although if that was at a single facility you might not be able to generalise to all Olin facilities). Larataguera (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I might expand it a bit by mentioning their ongoing asbestos use. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 18:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be good. I think it's better to be more specific when possible. Another thing about past vs present tense: Even when something is ongoing, past tense can be better because it keeps the statement from going out of date. So "Olin facilities posed a health hazard in 2023" remains a true statement even if no one updates it. "Olin facilities currently pose a health hazard" could become untrue if the facility closes or something and no one updates the article. Larataguera (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but where do you draw the line, exactly? If the company stopped manufacturing ammunition, then it would no longer be true that Olin Corporation is an American manufacturer of ammunition. I think that defaulting to the present tense makes sense in general, though I agree that my present tense hazard summary may have been a bit too broad. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 00:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I guess it's a matter of how likely it is for the statement to become dated. And maybe it's relatively stable in this case.For me, the main consideration more generally is producing a resilient edit that won't need continual maintenance. Vague statements in the present tense seem more likely to be removed than specific statements about past events. (Although I think there's possibly some COI IP editing on this article, because specific statements about past accidents were also removed, but those statements were restored by an RC patroller). Larataguera (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely insane whitewash
More than 50 years of political lobbying to fund and support regressive Republican legislation, yet not a word appears anywhere on this page. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been on Wikipedia a long time, you know how this works. If you have reliable sources to support this then feel free to add it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't follow me around because you are upset about criticism about Battlestar Galactica. If you were familiar with this topic, you would know this material appears as links in the "see also" section, not in the body, and is already fully sourced.  The problem is that it is kept separate from this article, hence the whitewash. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I clicked on one link, it's not following you around. And no one is upset about anything (do people really get upset at stuff that happens on Wikipedia? Weird world.) If you think it should be in the article, then feel free to add it, as long as it's about the corporation and not the foundations. Canterbury Tail talk 21:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. Your Canadian civility is showing (just don't apologize for anything).  The thing is, everyone has their own method for working with controversial topics.  While it's true that I've experimented with many different approaches, over time I've come to prefer weighing in on the talk page first.  You write, "feel free to add it, as long as it's about the corporation and not the foundations", but that's the crux of the problem.  The lobbying arm of the foundations supports and promotes the interests of the corporation. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: looking at this from a purely historical approach, it appears that Chuck Schumer was one of the first (or most vocal) politicians to connect the corporation with the foundation, prompting a detailed response from William E. Simon in the WSJ in 1996. This dispute arose in the previous months when gun advocate John R. Lott Jr. publicized his pro-gun CCW research. which was alleged to have been connected to Olin money. Lott claimed to show that "relaxed concealed weapons laws reduce crime".  The Violence Policy Center (VPC) maintains a page of the original allegations.  Many of these allegations show how the links to the foundation and corporation were still at work. Simon goes on to defend his foundation from the charges, alleging it is entirely separate and independent from the company and simply devoted to promoting free enterprise, while denying any attempt at controlling academic discourse.  However, many other sources present an altogether different view, with investigative reporters like Jane Mayer (and many others) showing exactly how the foundation directly intersects with the interest of the corporation, with Mayer expending a great deal of effort illustrating the connection in her book Dark Money, making Simon's 1996 denial look increasingly suspect as a form of misdirection.  VPC even cites Simon's own words against him when he wrote, "Business leaders can direct corporate giving along constructive lines by playing an active role on the boards of the foundations their enterprise has made possible...[C]orporate leaders have abdicated far too much day-to-day operational control of their giving to a philanthropic managerial class which sets their giving priorities for them....While businesses may understandably wish to give to traditional charities of interest to local employees and customers, it is also their responsibility to nurture the efforts of individuals and institutions which strive to strengthen the very freedoms that allow business to thrive in the first place....Companies should give as through their futures depended on it, for in a very real sense, they do."  VPC and others showed that at the time of the original controversy, "former Olin Corporation executives continued to serve on the Foundation's board of directors".  Another source also draws a direct connection: "The John M. Olin Foundation was created in 1953 by the Olin Corporation, which produces, among other things, Winchester rifles. Olin became a more aggressive player in public affairs in 1977 when William Simon became president and Michael Joyce was named executive director."  And another: "The John M. Olin Foundation grew out of a family manufacturing business, and has grown substantially in the past 20 years...Research done in Olin programs provides an academic basis for right-wing policy." So you may be saying, so what?  Well, the so what is that like the Koch network, the Olin foundation attempted to construct, author, and promote US policy that aligned with the interests of its parent company, and yes that term "parent company" is actually used.  This is important because these right-wing foundations have, since the 1970s, attempted to confuse the US political landscape by pretending they are completely independent and have no ties to their corporate interests.  But as it turns out, this is not true, they are in fact lobbying arms for their corporations, and their existence, as Simon himself says in his own words up above, implies a "responsibility" to promote policies in their own self-interest.  That this interest is not discussed here in any form is the underlying problem. With that said, I don't even think that's controversial.  We would all expect a company to defend its interests in the marketplace and the government.  The controversy comes from the intersection of money, influence, and politics.  The problem isn't that the money from the foundation was used to defend the interests of the parent company, but towards this end, according to its accusers, it was used to warp academic research, manipulate science, politicize policies, promote weapons proliferation, and perhaps, according to some critics, promote militarism abroad, gun violence at home, and increase polarization by injecting culture war rhetoric into the larger society.  Those are the key issues.  Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "used to warp academic research, manipulate science" My family has been using this expression since I was a toddler, more than 30 years ago: "Rent an expert". That academics and scientists are used as corporate shills is common knowledge. Every two-bit corporation and political party has its own "experts", "public advocates", and think tanks to produce its thinly-disguised propaganda as "research". Why is this controversial in any way? Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)