Talk:Clorox

(null header)

How does Clorox effect the environment?

Bleach is actually one of the least environmentally friendly disinfecting and cleaning products on the market.

crappy Vandalism? Removed the line: "In 2007, ME216a kids will be pwned by Clorox."

Yeh someone put 'hard cock cleaner' for Formula 409 when the Wiki page says hard surface - I took the liberty of assuming that is vandalism... why those types of people are reading the Clorox page, I shall never quite comprehend.... 68.205.145.219 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a dank meme, everyone jokes about drinking Clorox when they are suffering from crippling depression! 149.154.209.50 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Logo?

Isn't the logo displayed on this page incredibly new? Yes, it's still at the top of www.thecloroxcompany.com and the bottom of clorox.com, but the one least (?) people associate with this brand is the new logo, the one at the bottom of clorox.com. Am I the only one that thinks this should not be changed?

Logo clarified

Top right logo is the corporate logo, the bottom right is a product branding logo used on some Clorox products. Bottom right appears to be outdated as well.

You'll see the top right one on non-product related materials and when otherwise referencing the company itself. The bottom right one is only used as part of product branding and when it is used this way it is part of the product name (i.e. Clorox Anywhere). Not all Clorox-owned products use this logo or even mention they are Clorox products at all. --Kevin Quosig (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

sodium laurel sulfate

The article says that “[SDS] has long been criticized by the scientific community for its negative health effects”. Is that true? It seems like a convoluted paraphrase for “SDS is bad for you”. Since some scientific communities uses SDS as a cleaner in labs, I can’t imagine it’s that bad. 98.212.3.231 (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The article used as a reference for that statements reads: "Many items in the Green Works line also include sodium lauryl sulfate, which the company describes as a "coconut-based cleaning agent." That may be true, but, coconut or not, SLS has long been criticized by the scientific community for its not-so-natural effects; the American College of Toxicology described SLS as a known skin irritant in a report published more than 20 years ago." Seems pretty straight forward to me. Freikorp (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the entire "dubious claims" section should go. It quotes an msn article that is very misleading. SDS is a common detergent found in all shampoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.74.44 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems you don't understand how things work on wikipedia. Firstly WP:Verifiability, " Verifiability, and not truth" is the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia. Where is your reliable evidence that the msn article is misleading? Also SLS is certainly not found in ALL shampoo; get your facts straight. But that is only one sentence of this whole section. What's you reason for wanting to remove everything else? You're going to have to come up with something a lot better than just saying it seems like the whole section should go. Freikorp (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally here is an article stating whilst the effects of SLS are often exaggerated, it is a skin irritant and will cause problems if you leave shampoo containing SLS in your hair too long. Just because it is common does not mean it is safe. [1] Freikorp (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clorox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205073115/http://investors.thecloroxcompany.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=222798 to http://investors.thecloroxcompany.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=222798

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Brita is not a Clorox subsidiary

Brita is still a family-owned company.[2] Clorox holds the rights in the brand only for the Americas.[3] For the rest of the world, the rights remain with the original company. --EnOreg (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clorox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203035117/http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/company/history/index.html to http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/company/history/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118032148/http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/company/history/history3.html to http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/company/history/history3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Advert-like

This reads strongly like a company-written "About Us" page, with a criticism section tacked on at the end. The entire wording choice needs to be seriously reconsidered to remove corporate buzzwords and subjective remarks, like "reputation for quality", "well-known", "consumer megatrends". It also suffers from proseline problems. I felt tagging the page was and is less disruptive than trying to tag each individual case. --Ipatrol (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. A consensus should be reached here before removing the tag. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be about the brand?

So, Apparently this article is about both the company and the brand. however, Since the article name says "Clorox", Shouldn't a Clorox brand article be made? That would be better. I don't know why both are in the same article. Here are the benefits and Disqualities of this occurring: Benefits- Users won't be confused as to what the article excatly is about. Disqualities- The articles might merge into one again. So, What will it be: Spin off or Keep merged? YKW? I'm letting all Wikipedia users decide. Purchase this: Nike Zoom Freak 3 - UNO Basketball Shoes- Basketball Store if you want the spinoff to happen. If not, Purchase this: "Yellow NO U Uno reverse card" Sticker for Sale by MakerJake | Redbubble This is jack ternes signing off! 76.188.240.96 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Global manufacturer?

To what extent is Clorox a global, as opposed to an American, manufacturer? The brand is unknown in the UK, and the article gives no information about operations outside the US. If there are indeed non-US operations then the article should list them; if there aren't, then it isn't a global company. Ef80 (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, the dominant branded consumer bleach in the UK is Unilever's Domestos, though the market overall is dominated by supermarket house brands and generic bleaches. --Ef80 (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This statement comes from the company's website: "Clorox has subsidiaries in United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Clorox UK, located in Richmond, London, has operated in the European market for over 30 years. Some of the iconic brands are: Burt's Bees, Clorox; Fresh Step, Glad, Chux, Gumption, Handy Andy, Kingsford, Mono and Rota." So perhaps you just haven't noticed? Or their products are being sold under certain brands that aren't obviously Clorox? I mean, I don't think a lot of Americans know that Lysol and Enfamil, for example, are Reckitt brands. Heck, a lot of Americans know of Unilever, but I bet many of them don't even know it's a British company. However, I do notice that "multinational" tends to be more common than "global", which sounds a bit broader/salesy. We could simply change that word to "multinational" to be more technical. pillowcrow 21:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. The only 'iconic brands' that I recognise from that list are Gumption and Handy Andy, both relatively obscure cleaning products, so it's still unclear how big an operation they have in the UK - they may just have a small sales and marketing office, or a small semi-independent subsidiary they bought 30 years ago. I don't see how we can progress this without WP:RS. It's standard practice for companies to big up their international presence in their corporate publicity. --Ef80 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You're probably right. I went ahead and changed "global" to "multinational". It feels like a more toned-down word choice. I'll keep trying to find some RS for this topic. I'd also be fine with not even using "multinational". pillowcrow 16:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)