You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it.
I'd suggest changing it just to the linked page's title "Bhopal disaster" (context: at the time of writing the title is "1984: US company's negligence kills 15,000 people in India" since, as mentioned in the article, it is disputed whether Union Carbide was negligent. Union Carbide still maintains the disaster was the result of sabotage.
update: Thanks editors!
Also, completely coincidentally, UC was involved in a dispute with the union.
Lastly, "US Company" is inaccurate. The plant was only 50.9% US owned, and 49.1% Indian owned.
Note that the Indian government significantly inhibited any external investigation into the disaster.
Half of sabotage is breaking safeguards.
Not that precautions and defenses shouldn't exist, but asking for safeguards that are still safe after being sabotaged is like asking cryptologists to design a system that is still secure after it's been compromised.
It agrees with my recollection of the reporting at the time, that when Union Carbide built the plant in 1969 it was in a deserted area and that the victims moved there later (according to this account, due to the actions of local planners).