Talk:Clorox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  (null header) 

message: 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 Bottom right appears to be outdated as well.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)
thread_title:  Logo clarified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  Freikorp (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sodium laurel sulfate 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Brita is still a family-owned company. Clorox holds the rights in the brand only for the Americas. For the rest of the world, the rights remain with the original company. --EnOreg (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brita is not a Clorox subsidiary 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. A consensus should be reached here before removing the tag. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert-like 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should this article be about the brand?