Talk:Warren Anderson (American businessman)/Archives/2012

Acceptable sources

The website knowmore.org looks like it is a wiki open to editing by the public (like wikipeida itself). This is not an acceptable source, even if it is refering to a true event. (wiki anon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.44.77 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

much as i respect the work of Greenpeace, they're hardly an unbiased source when it comes to industry and chemicals 58.171.100.12 (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Not directly About Topic

This article is more of a discussion of the Bhopal disaster than Warren Anderson. Indeed, after the introductory paragraph, the next four paragraphs do not discuss Anderson at all. Further, his bio is relegated to the last paragraph, after the lengthy tangential discussion of the Bhopal disaster that makes up the rest of the article. This article should be edited to speak more about Anderson and less of the separate, albeit related, topic that already has its own article.

Behack 03:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit

"far greater culpabilities of the Indian governments and its organs." - this is ignorant, if you want to make blanket statements like this, please cite some evidence.

The editor has confused issues of criminal and tort culpability. The charges that Anderson is evading in India are criminal charges based upon allegations of gross negligence. The only defence Union Carbide has put forward against these charges is that of a mystery saboteur that it refuses to name. The facts remain that the scrubber unit in the plant was not operational, the flare stack was not operational and safety upgrades that had been completed in identical plants in the U.S. had not been completed in the Bhopal facility (all of this is documented on the main Wikipedia entry for the Bhopal Disaster). As the directing mind of Union Carbide (the controlling shareholder of its' Indian subsidiary) it is completely plausible that Anderson might bear personal criminal responsiblity for the gas-leak if it can be shown that there was a systemic break-down in corporate policy and oversight regarding safety standards and the execution of those standards. Holding him accountable will admittedly be an uphill battle in that it would require piercing the corporate veil of the Indian subsidiary (unless Anderson was the director of this body or had some other managerial role to play within it). The difficulty of the prosecution proves nothing, however, in that these are questions best determined at trial, not through the making of baseless accusations on a Wikipedia talk page. Of course, a trial is precisely what we do not have, thanks to Mr. Anderson's shameful flight from justice aboard his corporate jet.

Additionally, the issue of the defendant's wealth in this case is completely unrelated to the criminal prosecution. Why has the editor made reference to it within the context of his discussion of Anderson's flight from criminal charges? This is far from clear. Anderson is already indemnified from tort-based compensation claims through Dow's suit settlement with the Indian government.

"jailed as a common criminal" - also ignorant. Being held pending trial is not be jailed as a common criminal (whatever that means) because one's status as criminal has yet to be established. At the very least it should be noted that the spartan conditions of Indian pre-trial holding facilties are something that one has to contend with should a corporation that they manage negligently kill more than 8,000 people. Furthermore, I sincerely hope that the author is not trying to articulate a distinction between corporate criminal defendants and purse-snatchers. No such distinction exists in law, and thankfully, it would appear that no such distinction exists within the Indian penal system (I wish I could say the same for our correctional departments).

One additional comment.

"Anderson was formally assured that he would not be arrested, and yet that, in utter disregard of their promises, the Indian government had him arrested"

This is not illegal. American police do this all the time. State authorities are fully permitted to lie to suspects in order to elicit cooperation, everything from inventing evidence to false-assurances of leniency are tolerated by our courts. If you want to talk about hypocrisy why not begin here?

I have to agree with the above assessment. It seems someone is trying to belittle the scale of what Anderson (atleast the parent company) has caused. -- LogicDictates (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, Mr. Anonymous

Dear Mr. Anonymous, — I don't know how it escaped you that what I said was that I am willing to debate my viewpoint here. But, first things first; I refuse to debate with an anonymity. I notice that you have used the "CVernon" name only for this article and talk page, and have not even registered. Please register and then we can begin. Things should be interesting. WikiSceptic 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wikisceptic,

What do the following paragraphs add to the article?:

"Following this, he was jailed as a common criminal under unhygienic conditions, and only released on bail after several days in custody; once released, to the surprise of the Bhopal police, he jumped bail and flew back by private jet to the US, and has since never returned to India.

Strangely, while many elements of society have vigorouly accused Anderson, Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals of manslaughter, grievous assault, and other offenses, and of liability, there has been no attempt whatsoever to sue the Government of India or any of its concerned organs and bring the responsible persons to justice.

The blame-game is purely one sided, based on jingoism rather than on principles of justice and equity, and seeks to exploit Anderson, Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals because of their wealth, while hypocritically ignoring the far greater culpabilities of the Indian governments and its organs."

My response:

First of all, you cite no sources. This is a significant problem considering that Wikipedia articles purport to be factual, not op-ed pieces. As far as I can tell, all of this is just your personal opinion based on nothing other than your own ideology and blanket assumptions.

Paragraph 1 - "jailed as a common criminal" - who do the terms 'common criminal' add to this paragraph except for hyperbole and bias?

Paragraph 2 - "manslaughter, assault etc." are CRIMINAL OFFENCES. What would be the purpose in anyone suing the Indian government at this point? Lawsuits do not bring people to justice on criminal charges. This is a simple fact of common law systems (Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435 (HL (Eng.)). Private individuals cannot, through suits, compel the Attorney General to initiate criminal or extradition proceedings. The Attorney General's discretion is its own. PLEASE do your research before adding material to articles. It is clear to me that, although you insist on commenting on legal matters, you have no expertise or knowledge relating to the law.

Paragraph 3 - What do you mean the "blame game is purely one-sided"? This makes literally no sense in the context and adds nothing to the article. I repeat, the wealth of the potential defendants is irrelevant in the context of criminal proceedings (private law remedies have been exhausted through the $450M settlement Dow reached with the Indian government). Furthermore, provide evidence for the "far greater culpabilities of the Indian government," or else delete the paragraph.

I'm not interested in debating these points further. You clearly have an ideological axe to grind - I suggest you grind it elsewhere.

--Cvernon 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The Bhopal disaster section of this article does not present a neutral point of view of Mr. Anderson's connection to the disaster. It should mention whether he had visited the facility before the explosion, how many levels of management separated him from the facility management, to what degree that management had been devolved to the Indian government, the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and generally what his defense is. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.89.26 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely the man is an UNCOMMON criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.178.234 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. That point of view is represented in the article. What about the counterargument? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.89.26 (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The so called NPOV section is completely factual with actual reports of him being arrested and jumping bail, I dont see why a neutrality tag is there--Freedom321 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is not with the factual nature of what the article asserts but with the material omissions from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wescbell (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Freedom321. I cannot understand what is non-neutral about it. What omissions are you talking about? Please cite -- LogicDictates (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added some information that at least schematically presents the other side of the issue. (e.g. Union Carbide's statement that those who were convicted were those who had direct control over the Bhopal plant - implying that Mr. Warren was too remote from the plant to be culpable). Given the inadequacy of my additions and given the previously one sided trajectory of the article, I think the NPOV tag should remain until further improvement have been made. Omissions include those cited above in the initial NPOV entry. For example, how much control did Mr. Anderson have over the Bhopal plant? How many layers of management were interposed? What was the purpose of his initial visit to Bhopal? To what degree are Union Carbide's statements credible? What are the published opinions regarding his claim that India does not have jurisdiction over him? Has the U.S. issued any statements regarding his extradition? Wescbell (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are not being realistic. I agree that UCIL was run at a distance from UC. However, ultimately, the CEO of the parent company is responsible. Just like BP's current chief is taking heat for the current oil spill off the gulf. If anything, he is farther up the chain because that rig was contracted out. Never-the-less he is taking the heat. The company however, will always try to distance itself from any acts committed by any of its employees.

"Anderson knew of looming leak threat" - "An employee of UCIL, Ashraf, died a year before the disaster because of a small leak of MIC gas from the plant. When an employee dies, the whole management knows about it. So, it will be a lie if Anderson says he did not know about the leak and the death of an employee,"[1] -- LogicDictates (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Puri's published view should also be included in the article. That a victim of the Bhopal disaster asserts, "When an employee dies, the whole management knows about it,"[2] does not definitively establish that other points of view should not be included. Wikipedia's NPOV policy states that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints....[A]ll majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources [should] be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. "[3]Wescbell (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added information about Mr. Puri and about the refusal of the U.S. to extradite Mr. Anderson. Because the article is now closer to compliance with the NPOV policy, I am removing the NPOV tag.Wescbell (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Safe passage?

In the wake of the 7th June verdict, the safe passage granted to Warren Anderson has created a political storm in India. As it is, this sentence is inconsistent with the rest of the article. There is no mention that he was granted safe passage by anybody. According to the preceding paragraph, he jumped bail and fled to the US. I'm not saying Indian authorities didn't grant him safe passage, but if there is this allegation it should be made explicit. Also, the sentence is hard to understand because the 7th June [2010] verdict is only explained afterwards.--94.222.124.103 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)