Talk:Chemetco

Note for editors: The article was listed as a Good Article in 2009 and delisted following review in 2019. Since then, it has undergone a major expansion and rewrite. This notice is retained for historical reference.

NPOV?

This seems to be more about their legal troubles than about the company. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my googling on this subject produced a lot of evidence that this company is notable for being a polluter, which would explain (perhaps) your observation. There is a brief history section and information about production at the site. I'm not sure what else you would suggest? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If it represents the weight of sources, then it's OK. I would have thought such a large company would have more about its history and non-polluting dealings, but if not, that's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2018–2019 GA delisting discussion

The discussion that led to the 2019 delisting of Chemetco from Good Article status has been archived at Talk:Chemetco/2019 GA delisting discussion. Note: The reassessment was initiated by an editor who may have had a connection to Chemetco’s parent company, according to statements they made on-wiki at the time.Astral highway (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Major structural edit and article assessment

I’ve completed major structural edit of the Wiki, the first in over a decade. The rewrite expands coverage of Chemetco’s operations, ownership history, a previously uncited legal case, labour relations, occupational health, and environmental impact and legacy. The article has been restructured for clarity and readability while keeping technical accuracy, in line with relevant style and accessibility guidelines. All citations have been individually checked and timestamped. At this stage the article should meet the broad criteria for comprehensive coverage, sourcing, and prose quality expected of higher-class assessments. Feedback on balance, sourcing depth, and overall readiness for GA review would be very welcome.Astral highway (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a very quick skim of the article for now - the lead seems to be very long. Is there a reason why it can't be condensed at all? Is the role of the 1992 primary / campaign contributions controversy really given WP:DUE weight? There is not very much written about this topic, the sources given are all primary sources and yet it is given a separate header and mentioned prominently in the lead.

In the interests of helping providing better secondary sourcing, since I see from the reference list that there is a heavy reliance on primary sources (for at least some claims), I found a few articles on newspapers.com.

1992: (1), (2)

1995:

1999:

2000:

Katzrockso (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @KatzrocksoThanks for taking a look and for raising those consecutive points.

Lead

On the lead, it’s intentionally structured to comply with WP:LEADActing on your comment, lead is now around 400 words, per GA guidelines for even a shorter article.

1992 U.S primary presidential election FEC investigation for donation with foreign laundered money

This section is intentionally given early placement as both the company and its owner directly attempted to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. That activity has substantial historical relevance, nationally and internationally, and as it used laundered foreign money, it goes beyond routine campaign donations. It helps frame Chemetco’s relationship with regulatory and political institutions, a theme that recurs throughout its history. For that reason, its inclusion and positioning in the lead meet WP:DUE. Simply, it gives appropriate weight to a significant event rather than overemphasizing a minor one.

Sourcing

The reliance on verifiable federal sources for heavyweight material was selectively applied and deliberate. Where primary materials are used, they are paired with the best available secondary sources to maintain verifiability and precision per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. It's not ideal to use paywalled articles although I now made one exception,within Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate the additional news sources and have added one that adds depth / corroboration.

Much appreciated! — Astral highway(talk) 09:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC) Updated Astral highway (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Reference 'cite error' after I reduced length of lead

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I condensed the lead paragraphs on the Chemetco article, and now several references show Cite error: The named reference … was invoked but never defined.' I think this is a reference templating issue. Could someone kindly fix /restore the malformed citations? I don't have that particular skillset, so much appreciated. Thanks!Astral highway (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page before seeing this. The error comes from your edit, you never supplied the actual references. For instance you added <ref name="EPAHistory" /> but you never defined any reference with that name, the same issue effects all the references you added to the lead. In each case you need to replace what's there with the full reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I checked through the article history, but no references with the refnames you added appear to have ever existed in the article before your edit -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You should deleted other editors comments from an articles talk page. You can delete sections on your user talk page, but article talk pages sections should be removed especially if the issue is still effecting the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, no harm was meant. A bot spotted the citation error and signaled me to ask for help again. So to avoid confusion, in good faith I removed your message. Thanks again for your help and I'll post another help message as the bot suggests. Astral highway (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

There no need for another message, you just need to supply the missing references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the issue was actually being caused by multiple reference section. The article should only have one such section, and errors will occur if there two. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

That extra section auto-generated after I took the refs out of the lead manually one by one, then repopulated it from scratch. It was an effect rather than a cause. Well spotted though, thanks. Astral highway (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chemetco site entrance.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)