Talk:Underwriters Laboratories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Hi, does anyone have info about what characteristics differentiates the following cables?

Cables according UL CSA approval

     - UL 1007
     - UL 1015
     - UL 1283
     - UL 1284

> these are "style numbers". UL describes Appliance Wiring Materials with 4 to 5 digits called "style numbers". Each "style number" has a "style page" which describes the critical characteristics assigned, tested and monitored by UL. For example the style 1007 is a PVC, 80°C, 300V, for internal wiring optionally suitable for oil exposition. You can search and download style pages at [1]

Here is a sample style page for UL1007 : [2] --86.198.137.82 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Try eng-tips.com --C J Cowie 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)



Hi, I just wanted to post one quick question. How is Underwriters Laboratories funded?

--

UL is funded by the companies seeking listings. From what I understand, the testing process is very expensive and can take a long time.AppleSeed 10:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The following comments were added by anonymous user: User:209.7.107.26 on December 4, 2005. A search of http://www.arin.net/whois/ indicates that the IP address is owned by Illinois Century Network. A google search indicates that is a service providing internet connections for Illinois schools, libraries etc. These comments have been deleted several times by anonymous user: User:12.32.89.97. A search of http://www.arin.net/whois/ indicates that the IP address is owned by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. --C J Cowie 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


UL is a non-for-profit, actually it has tax-exempt status by a special measure from the US congress. The company however works just like any for-profit company with a focus on financials.
Over the last few years maby of the technical experts in teh company have left due to an influx of people with little interest in public safety and more focus on financial performance. There has been significant cost cutting, cutting corners and teh company was just fined $6.3 million last week due to unprofessional work.
Companies have to work with UL because they need testing to be able to sell in US. They are locked in and have few other chices. They have to pay quite a lot for bad service, slow work and decreasing technical expertise.

Contents

[edit] Deletion of text

Slackbarshinger has deleted the following text three times now without offering any reason for the deletion. I've now officially warned Slackbarshinger, but will capture the text here awaiting some explanation.

== Recent Controversy ==
Kevin R. Ryan was terminated from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of UL after the 9/11 attacks, after writing a lengthy letter to NIST Deputy Chief Frank Gayle alleging that UL had certified the steel for the World Trade Center towers and that there was no way in which 500 degrees could have melted the steel. Soon after his letter, UL spokesman Paul M. Baker reported "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center".

Atlant 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you’ve indicated I deleted text without a reason, but I did submit a reason twice and don’t understand why it’s not showing up on your end. So I’ll restate my reason: as someone who knows the UL organization, I found the insinuation that someone was fired due to a letter he wrote to be somewhat irresponsible. That was the reason I deleted. Seems if the the allegation is being made, it should be more fact-basedSpooky63 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Curious. Here's what the article's recent edit history shows:
* (cur) (last) 21:11, 30 April 2007 Slackbarshinger (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,613 bytes) (Deleted content) [rollback]
* (cur) (last) 19:25, 30 April 2007 Atlant (Talk | contribs | block) (8,175 bytes) (Now tell us *WHY* you're removing it. Revert again.)
* (cur) (last) 18:07, 30 April 2007 Slackbarshinger (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,611 bytes) (Removed section)
* (cur) (last) 18:03, 30 April 2007 Atlant (Talk | contribs | block) (8,175 bytes) (Revert uncommented deletion)
* (cur) (last) 17:53, 30 April 2007 Slackbarshinger (Talk | contribs | block) (7,613 bytes)
You'll note that there's no explanation offered for the section deletion nor was it you (at least, not in your Spooky63 guise) who made the deletions. Do you edit under multiple accounts?
Atlant 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Atlant, Wanted to reply to your last string. I asked a subordinate who claimed to know how to post to Wiki to send my response yesterday during the day and apparently, he didn't know what he was doing. He told me he deleted and provided the reason twice, but your string clearly shows the reason/rationale didn't show up. Anyway, that's when I decided to respond to you myself last night and now again today, hence the different user name.

Also, my subordinate tells me he deleted it twice because when he viewed it from his IP address, it appeared to be gone. But when he asked someone else with another IP address to check it, the posting was still there on the article.

In fact today, when I view the article, the comment I took offense to appears to be gone, but when I asked another co-worker to check the article and comment, the comment is still there. Any insight?

All I'm trying to do at this point is remove the controversial statement for the reason I stated last night; that such a strong insinuation of this kind should be fact-based and not unfounded accusations. Thanks.Spooky63 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding Wiki user accounts.
With regard to content coming and going, the most-usual reason of course is that someone edited the article (but you knew that one). Another reason, occasionally, is that an old version of the article has been "cached" by your web browser or some proxy server that sits between your browser and Wikipedia's web servers.
Finally, with regard to the edit itself, I'm fairly agnostic, but it is important that edits be supportable. When I was reverting the content back in, I was doing so because there wasn't any stated reason for the deletion. As it is, I don't have any opinion about the content per se and I accept your reasons for the deletion. (Other editors may, of course, feel differently.)
Thanks for stopping by to explain all of this, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Atlant 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like corporate PR

The text of this article reads as though it came from the company's own web page (possibly rephrased) or was written by a corporate PR person. Can we get some actual cites in this article, and a mix of sources? Thanks. 201.19.40.122 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a citation regarding the need for UL certification in practice (i.e. that it's required by building inspectors and such). I also removed the paragraph on their safety education program, since it didn't strike me as a especially signficant. Surely many large corporations, utilities, etc. have such programs. Also it felt like a PR move to mention it, and it didn't fit in the History section.
Other than that, the only thing that I'm tempted to change is the paragaph starting "In the past 20 years, great strides have been made in harmonizing international safety standards." I'm not sure if it's NPOV, or that it feels like a subtle sales pitch ("get your Canadian and US certification through us"). Though it is useful info. Overall, I think for PR copy this article meets Wikipedia standards pretty well. They even submitted the images as GFDL.Electrolite 07:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No need for list of presidents

Agree with the above comment about how this looks like UL PR....having a list of presidents is one part of that. I see no need for this info, and it's really never used in analogous articles. So I'm deleting the list. If someone sees a really good reason to keep it, please discuss it here. Thanks! NuclearWinner 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mrjomo added back the list of presidents at "the request of content provider". Not sure who the content provider is - maybe UL? - but I really don't think this list is needed. It smacks of corporate PR rather than neutral and encyclopedic info. I might compare it to a hallway filled with portraits of past presidents - that's of great meaning to the corporation, but minimal or no interest to anyone else except in HIGHLY unusual situations involving charismatic CEOs, extremely well-known companies, etc. No offense to UL but none of these exceptions apply. If you want to have this list here, please DISCUSS it on this talk page and give your reasons why this content IS of encyclopedic relevance. Please be advised that there is no third party, and certainly not UL, who has any special privilege in deciding what will be in this article, so the preferences of the "content provider" carry no weight.NuclearWinner 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why would someone need UL

Hi all....

Just want to know when UL is required? Is it required on certain types of products or for certain markets?

Thank you,

Cathy