Talk:UL (safety organization)

Untitled

I disagree, it should be removed completely. It only acts as an advertisement for the UL company to sell their own standards and make a profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misschoos (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "it" risk? If so, I agree. If you mean the logo, I think that's fine. Reminds us to avoid risk. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

UL Standards

The section titled 'UL Standards' and the link associated with it seems to ONLY list standards related to electrical Industrial Control Equipment... UL does a lot more than that, so I'd recommend Deletion of that very incomplete list. More appropriate links than the one provided might be: [1], or [2]

There are several standards in the list that are obsolete(e.g., 6500 and 60950), and 62368-1 will eventually obsolete 60065 (nee 6500) and 60950-1. Note that a UL standard has no 'standing' until published by ANSI, which is the National Body for the IEC. While UL does the yeoman's logistical work for setting up an STC, the actual membership is mostly members of various industry sectors and individual experts. The eventual aim, where there is not significant conflict with NEC, is to eventually harmonize all UL standards with IEC, as exhibiting by many listed in the article. An accepted standards list is published on the U.S. OHSA's NRTL site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.8.207.146 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim, directly above this comment, that "standing" requires ANSI publication/approval is false. There are a number of organizations that use UL tests, methods, and standards. Most of my work with UL Standards had *nothing* to do with electricity. Turns out, who knew, that UL publishes more than electrical standards. (Who knew? Anyone who has bothered to look at their complete catalog, that's who.) If anyone doubts the egregious blunder by the above comment, just navigate to the UL site (shopulstandards.com/Catalog...) and make sure to look at the complete catalog! (Standards usually have the word "Standard" in their title (they all do, as far as I know). Just as a 'for instance', the first standard listed is UL-1 Standard for flexible metal conduit. Please note that this is NOT present in Wikipedia article's list along with a multitude of others. I don't understand why such an egregiously incomplete list has persisted for literally decades here. I recommend that either the list be removed (mostly because it is so incomplete) or if not removed then include all current standards. Please note that it is simply not accurate to consider its Standards as the only or even major product category it provides. It provides many test methods, and quality standards in addition to the product standards mentioned. This article is pretty bad, imho. (It provides other documents some most practical some sorta "researchy" (i.e. academic), btw.) Note: I am not familiar with their recent split into 3 organizations, but previously I have personally dealt with a lot of their test methods and product standards, and I have been in Chicago at one of their test sites and have coordinated the certification of my company's test site by UL.98.21.208.178 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

untitled comments

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 [3]

Here is a sample style page for UL1007 : [4] --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.

public availability?

Can explain/discuss this for the article: UL seems to be not-for-profit, and used by govt. agencies such as OSHA. It has very important safety impact on consumers, but the info in the standards does not seem to be easily viewable. For example, I simply want to see what the standard has to say about "tipover switch" for tall floor lamps... I think that would be in UL 153. Is there any way (online) that ordinary consumers can understand the safety standards of products they buy, without paying a lot of money to purchase a full copy? (Does the government spend any taxpayer money on consumer standards that aren't freely viewable online by consumers?)

UL is no longer not-for-profit....it's how they started off.

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)

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)

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)

Why would someone need UL

Hello Cathy - UL mark has no legal weight and is not required for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misschoos (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

(sorry I don't know how to indent) OSHA has regs that state that most products used in the workspace should be "Listed" with an NTRL(National Institute of Standards and Technology) of which UL is an example. Additionally, many forms of insurance require that products used in a project be listed or the insurance is voided. Sorry for not being more specific about listing, it's kind of new to me.2008UFgrad (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Testing Section going "For profit"

Hi guys, I'm new to editing Wikipedia.

I just found UL's news release saying that they are creating a for profit subsidiary to do all their testing, and thought it would be worth putting on the article, but I am unsure about etiquette, or how to cite the article, so I'm posting here.

the link to the news release is...

[5]...

I might work on adding it to the article later, but I'm currently doing research on UL and don't have the time. 2008UFgrad (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I finally added this section. I also took not-for-profit from the initial description. According to the wayback archive engine, UL removed "not-for-profit" from their "about" web page between Nov 20th and Dec 21st.--2008UFgrad (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

References

'UL ratings' and 'UL rating' redirects

I added two redirect pages that go to the main article. I was unsure which spelling would be more correct.

Read the comment on the talk pages there.

Talk:UL ratings and Talk:UL rating redirects

Wisepiglet (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan

Good job silencing and removing Kevin Ryan's page on wiki. I guess the admins used the "notability" fraud again. Pretending he was not the first to gain notoriety and massive media (internet) coverage. I suppose you think you'll manage to get away with it? You sick shills. We'll remember who you were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.37.78 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Advertising Business

Are they allowed to use wiki to promote a business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.140.9 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Connections to insurance companies?

It seems to me that UL certification mainly is required for insurance reasons, as insurance companies regularly demand it. Given the name und origin of the company I wonder if a connection of sorts leading to conflicts of interest may still lurk in the background. I also don't like this article, because it seems to hide that ultimately UL is simply a corporation, which is clouded here by the term "Organization". Anyone with any information?

Wassermensch 10:0, 27 October 2011 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

New Logo

Hello, I work for UL and would like to update the logo shown on this page - we created a new logo about a year ago. Out of respect for Wikipedia neutrality, I wasn't sure if it was appropriate for me to do so myself. I am new to Wikipedia, can someone advise on the best way to get the logo updated? I would be happy to provide a file. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.89.121 (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The new logo should come from a publicly accessible place (UL's website) so that other people can easily verify where it came from and that it is genuine. Other than that you can upload it over top of the existing image, or upload it as a new image. Either way I don't think there will be a problem. I (and most all WikipediAns) appreciate your caution and desire to "play by the rules" 76.117.247.55 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

UL certificattion for Central Stations

Good day, I work for a Central Station in the Caribbean and we are seeking to have our Station UL certified. Can I get some guidance as to how to get this done. We are also looking at getting CSAA(Central Station Alarm Association)certification for our operators and Monitoring room. Thanks in advance. Raymond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.93.226 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Logo ?

I've seen things marked with a logo like an italic LR joined to make UL, possibly mirror-reversed left-to-right. Was that a former logo for UL ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• See new section UL (safety organization)#Recognized Component Mark. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious number of inbound links

Hi,

It looks like this page is wikilinked to by hundreds of random pages on wikipedia (eg Lint (material)), which bear the most tangential of relations to this article. This seems really odd, and spamlike. 2.97.120.22 (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/UL_(safety_organization) is the list of links. It would be difficult to search why so many inbound links exist. There do seem to be hundreds of instances of this, and that does seem strange.

This article itself needs cleanup. If anyone wants to clean it, a good start might be to remove information which is presented without any reference. All information added to Wikipedia must come from an existing published source which meets Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UL (safety organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121224031804/http://www.ul.com:80/global/documents/corporate/newsroom/ulfactsheet2012.pdf to http://www.ul.com/global/documents/corporate/newsroom/ulfactsheet2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Grenfell fire consequences in US

108.84.20.17 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Does the composite material of a sandwich of outside aluminum sheets and an inside flammable insulation, as used in the Grenfell fire in London, constitute a material that either can or has been legally used anywhere in the US?

Tidying up

I've removed some POV material and tagged unsourced articles. We need more RS. Autarch (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Autrack. Thank you for your 'tidying up.' UL would like to make the following suggested citations:

Apply to …it was known throughout the 20th century as Underwriters Laboratories and participated in the safety analysis of many of that century's new technologies, most notably the public adoption of electricity and the drafting of safety standards for electrical devices and components.[citation needed] o Miller, R., & Miller, M. R. (2014). Industrial electricity and motor controls. McGraw Hill.

Apply to UL is one of several companies approved to perform safety testing by the U.S. federal agency Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).[citation needed] and OSHA maintains a list of approved testing laboratories, which are known as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories. [citation needed] o UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (n.d.). Retrieved December 20, 2017, from https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nrtllist.html

Apply to Underwriters Laboratories Inc. was founded in 1894 by William Henry Merrill. [citation needed] and Upon seeing a growing potential in his field, Merrill stayed in Chicago to found Underwriters Laboratories.[citation needed] o Miller, R. (2005). Electrician's Pocket Manual. McGraw Hill.

Apply to Early in his career as an electrical engineer in Boston, a 25-year-old Merrill was sent to investigate the World Fair's Palace of Electricity. o Krohn, L. (1995). Consumer protection and the law: a dictionary. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC CLIO.

Apply to Merrill soon went to work developing standards, launching tests, designing equipment and uncovering hazards. and Aside from his work at UL, Merrill served as the National Fire Protection Association's secretarytreasurer (1903–1909) and president (1910–1912) and was an active member of the Chicago Board and Union Committee. In 1916, Merrill became UL's first president. o Onken, W., Jr. (1918). Electrical World (Vol. 71). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Apply to UL published its first standard, "Tin Clad Fire Doors", in 1903. and The following year, the UL Mark made its debut with the labeling of a fire extinguisher. o Juma, C. (2016). Innovation and its enemies: why people resist new technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Apply to In 1905, UL established a Label Service for certain product categories that require more frequent inspections. and UL inspectors conducted the first factory inspections on labeled products at manufacturers' facilities.[citation needed] o American Society for Testing and Materials. (1995). ASTM standardization news (Vol. 23, 1-7). American Society for Testing and Materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvlo (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We will work to get updated RS. We would also like to suggest changing our first paragraph to include us as "a global safety company, who tests and certifies products and creates safety standards," and not only an American consulting company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvlo (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposing Separation of UL LLC and Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

My apologies as I'm not an experienced editor, but I'd like to propose creating a clear delineation between UL LLC, which is the for-profit certification and testing body, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. which is the not-for-profit organization that oversees the development and maintenance of UL standards. Please see https://ul.org/ and https://www.ul.com/ while these two companies are related and previously were one single entity, that's no longer the case. Both entities have separate CEOs and boards. This could be achieved by creating a second page for the non-profit branch and moving any mention of standards to the non-profit, which would clean up this article significantly.