Talk:Exide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Chloride comments (moved from article)

(Following comment moved from article) Fourohfour 11:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exide is not linked to Chloride Group PLC in any way.

Chloride Group PLC is an international power protection company which no longer make or sell Chloride Batteries.

Parts of Chloride's battery divisions were sold to Exide however Chloride is NOT owned by Exide.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.133.3.59 (talk • contribs).

CHAPTER 4. THE CHLORIDE ELECTRICAL STORAGE COMPANY LIMITED The Chloride Electrical Storage Company Ltd. (Chloride) was registered as the Chloride Electrical Storage Syndicate Limited on 12th December, 1891, with a nominal capital of £262,500. Its principal object was to adopt a provisional agreement of 30th November, 1891, made between The Electric Storage Battery Company (E.S.B. Co.), New Jersey...

Jamplevia (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information

Greetings, Wiki community. I was very disappointed in the reference section of this article. Exide Technology needs a more direct heading for the controversial scandal with the involvement of arsenic and lead poisoning leakage at their sister facility in the City of Vernon, California. There needs to be a direct link to such websites, such as the wiki-page: Exide lead contamination; which also needs updating. This article missed many of the environmental impacts that were caused by this company and how their bankruptcy ending with them not paying for legal fines and fees to all the people of color who were negatively affected by the leakage. TERRYDELREY JAN31.2017 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


--BjKa (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Exotic Oxide" is also in print as an explanation for the meaning of "Exide". Phedrence (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Chapter 4. The Chloride Electrical Storage Company Limited" (PDF). UK Competition Commission. Retrieved 2007-05-11.

Made in england

I have here an 80+ year old Exide battery. On the bottom it says "made in england". The particular battery is mostly made of glass and on one side it has what resembles a volt meter, but I think it's a special gravity indicator. The indicator is marked as "Exide indicator" and "patent no 423913". The indicator arm can point at "full", "half" and "empty". The whole thing is about 10x10x20 cm (4x4x8 inches). There's no acid in it and it has probably been dry for at least a half a century.

Other text on it is:

"Acid level"
"Exide"
"GKG 5"
"SP. GR. 1.250"
"when fully"
"charged"
"charge at"
"2 1/2 ampers"

If a picture is needed, ask me on my talk page. GMRE (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exide Batteries of Canada Limited, Toronto

I don't know what facilities Exide had in Canada but they clearly had a presence there. 

The Electric Storage Battery Co., Philadelphia
Exide Batteries of Canada Limited, Toronto

LIFE Nov 10, 1941 pg 134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phedrence (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article in the Philadelphia Enquirer on Monday March 27, 1950 page 28 a d "In 62nd Year--and Happy" says that there were two Canadian subsidiaries and also one in Australia in addition to the five in the US. Phedrence (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More Identity Details, aliases etc.

  • Name: RAYOVAC CORPORATION
  • Address: Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A. (Wisconsin Corporation)
  • Address For Service: Sanford T. Colb & Co., 4 Sha'ar Hagai Street, P.O.B. 2273, Rehovot, 76122, Israel
  • 11/1967 - THE ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY COMPANY (NEW JERSEY CORPORATION)
  • 12/1981 - ESB INCORPORATED (DELAWARE CORPORATION)
  • 8/1983 - EXIDE CORPORATION

Phedrence (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article in the Philadelphia Enquirer on Monday March 27, 1950 page 28 a d "In 62nd Year--and Happy" says that Willard Storage Battery Co. was formed in 1902 when The Electric Storage Battery Co. bought a jewelry manufacturer that had been making batteries and that more Willard car batteries were being sold, Exide batteries were in second place. Phedrence (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moody's Manual of Investments: American and Foreign, Volume 13, Issue 2, 1922 The Electric Storage Battery Company -- History: Incorporated under New Jersey laws in June 1888, to manufacture and sell electric storage batteries. The company acquired the patents and good will of a large number of manufacturing and other concerns in this line of business, including the battery business of General Electric Company and the patent rights of the Westinghouse Storage Battery, Co., and owns all the capital stock of the Willard Storage Battery Co. Also acquired a controlling interest in the Chloride Electrical Storage Co. Ltd. of Manchester, England and has the exclusive right to manufacture in the United States under foreign patents. The plant is located at 19th Street and Allegheny Ave., Philadelphia. During 1920 company began construction of a new plant for the manufacture of electric starting and lighting devices for automobiles at Crescentville, Philadelphia, to cost when completed $2,000,000. Phedrence (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another name: Exide Industrial Division - Rising Sun and Adams Aves - 1963-May-12 Philadelphia Inquirer page 6 b - want ad Phedrence (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Labor Market Letter: Philadelphia area, Volumes 41-42. Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Employment Security, 1976 "Exide Power Systems, a division of ESB, Inc. will close its Rising Sun and Adams Avenue plant within the next year." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phedrence (talk • contribs) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exide Observes Golden Anniversary 1938 Founded in June 1888 near Gloucester, NJ. In 1894 moved to 19th St and Allegheny in Philadelphia. Fourty acres in Crescentville Philadelphia were purchased in 1919. Phedrence (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
United States Investor, Volume 31, Issue 1 - March 20, 1920 Electric Storage Battery -- With all charges but Federal taxes deducted the Electric Storage Battery Company reports a net income for the year ending December 31, 1919, of $4,800,812, which is equivalent after preferred dividends to $28.96 a share on the $16,561,925 of common stock as compared with a net income of $3,949,737 or $24.45 a share before the deduction of taxes on the $16,129,925 of common stock outstanding in 1918. ... It is this rapidly increasing surplus that market dopsters are watching, placing Electric Storage Battery Company in lists with those enterprises which are expected to pay a stock dividend now that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that they are not taxable. The company announces having arranged for the purchase of 40 acres of land at Crescentville in the northeastern part of Philadelphia, about four miles from the company's present plant, and any surplus funds will be used in the erection of additional plants, it is expected. The company has plenty of orders ahead and is running its plants at capacity. Such a situation would naturally lead to the contemplation of plans for additional factory space. The growth of Electric Storage Battery has been natural and not forced, new plants being build from earnings, its property investment from 1915 to 1919 having increased from $1,922,988 to $4,755,615. In this period the company practically doubled its plant capacity. ... Phedrence (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Electrical World, Volume 80, McGraw-Hill, July - December 1922 Crescentville Storage Battery Plant Receives Shipment -- According to schedule the first shipment of metal for batteries in carload lots has arrived at the Crescentville plant of the Electric Storage Battery Company, Philadelphia. Two of the plate departments have started to get into shape to relieve the Allegheny Avenue factory, which is working at more than full capacity. Phedrence (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chem. Eng. News, 1954, 32 (31), p 3078 Exide Develops Program to Combat Lead Dusts and Fumes ... Crescentville ... (National Safety News, Volume 70, August 1954 pages 30 - 33, 85, 86 published by the National Safety Council has a more elaborate version of the same story) Phedrence (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Starting in 1959, some of the plant buildings were sold:
  • The Philadelphia Inquirer, Saturday Morning, August 29, 1959, page 17 a d -- Investors Buy Exide Plant, Then Lease It ... 32,000 square feet and has a one-acre tract ...
  • The Philadelphia Inquirer, Saturday Morning, October 3, 1959, page 22 a b d h -- Exide Building On Adams Ave. Brings $175,000 ... 58,500 square feet ...
  • The Philadelphia Inquirer, Wednesday Morning, January 11, 1961, page 33 a d h -- Space Leased In Two Former Exide Plants ... Phedrence (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

There has been a slow motion edit war for several weeks, with repeated removal of lots of content without talk page discussion. I have protected the article for 30 days, and encourage all involved editors to work toward consensus here on the talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

requested edit -- unfortunately

Please remove the text "Unfortunately for thousands of concerned residents that live near the Exide plant," as this is poor wording not in accordance with

WP:NPOV. MPS1992 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

 Done no opposition after 4 days — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of page in violation of wiki policy

If we are going to remove one sentence that is built of partial content, using "unfortunately," it is logically inconsistent to then not review most of the current page. We have to admit & recognize that the majority of the page was written by editors with usernames blatantly stating an agenda and motivation contrary to neutrality, fairness, and balance: "Leadfreekids," "Envirojustice4all," "Peoplebeforeexide," "Cleanourair," "UnLeaded," "Stopenviroracism," "Keepkskidssafe," and even the admin Cullen328 who locked the page states his involvement since 1976 with the Sierra Club, a US environmental organization, on his user page. Wikipedia's policies and core principles state very clearly that agenda-driven edits go against what we stand for and "Neutrality is mandatory."Wikipedia:Simplified_rulesetWikipedia:Five_pillars How is this not a problem?

Look at this part: " Rather than do the right thing and be accountable for cleaning up their toxic mess though, on January 31, 2018, Exide Technologies sought to convince a bankruptcy judge that their company is not responsible for the $80 million dollars in additional cleanup costs the state of California is trying to recoup, and that the State’s claim should be discharged as part of the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan in 2015. " How is this Wiki standard?

I can't believe there is a section called "Environmental Justice, Racism, and Exide." This is an entire section of one singular environmental activist, namely mark! Lopez, and his opinion on the company. The section praises mark! Lopez on awards he has received, asserts that the company is racist, and that's it. Is this serious? This is just malicious.

Here is another example of Wiki's policies being directly violated on the Exide page: " In light of Exide Technologies’ controversial environmental and safety record throughout the U.S., some residents in communities where Exide operates are questioning Exide’s corporate partners and distributors about their corporate responsibility and culpability in selling Exide’s products when millions of dollars in cleanup costs for Exide’s role in toxic contamination in California, Texas and Pennsylvania are outstanding and ongoing. " This is a textbook use of "weasel words," condemned by Wikipedia.[[1]] Even if it were supported, how is it important that some residents disapprove of Exide's sponsorships? This is worded like an attempt to get the company's sponsors to drop Exide or something. The page is just very clearly written by partial individuals. Positive info about this company, that has been in business for 130 years, is nowhere to be found- another violation of wiki's guidelines.[[2]]

Furthermore, as editors have referenced in the revision history, there already exists an "Exide lead contamination" wiki page, dating back to February of 2016. Leadfreekids' case, which was compelling enough for Cullen328 to lock the page, accused the company of creating the "Exide lead contamination page" (which doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place), yet the environmental editors on the primary Exide page are the same people who have built the "Exide lead contamination" page; Cleanourair, Keepkidssafe, and Peoplebeforeexide are all contributors to "Exide lead contamination." The fact that editors (Leadfreekids, Mean as custard, Envirojustice4all) refused user "Hedbifsern"'s suggestion to move the Exide lead contamination info to the "Exide lead contamination" page that is dedicated specifically to that exact content-- solely because it supposedly has less traffic-- to me suggests a bit of vendetta or mal intent toward the company. Why would that content not go there? I'm not suggesting we erase the negative environmental information, but generally company pages on Wikipedia contain one small section referring to a separate page full of the criticisms and controversies (in this case, "Exide lead contamination," which already exists). See Apple Inc, Walmart, and Kroger for examples.Apple_Inc.WalmartKroger

Nobody visiting the primary Exide wiki page is looking for paragraphs on paragraphs of emotionally charged environmental activism- they likely want the information that is now buried at the bottom of the page, such as where the headquarters are located, the company's history, who the president is, etc. There is a place for this type of opinionated work but Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, as stated by Wikipedia itself.[[3]] Lastgrass89 (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1976 was a long time ago. I was thinking of chipping away at this mess in a gradual manner. Do you see your approach as more likely to be effective? MPS1992 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gradual works, I just figure that the page will be clean faster if we move the info before reviewing it. As a start I think the company info should be resurfaced to the top. Lastgrass89 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, regardless of article structure or even subject matter included vs. excluded, the specific instances of charged language and blatant partiality are unprofessional and should be cleaned up immediately. Jaamison (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaamison: the article is not currently protected from editing -- if you have no connection with the organization, then you could go right ahead and clean up the specific instances you mention. If you do have a connection with the organization, then you should mention that connection on your userpage, and here, and let us know on this talk page what the specific instances are. MPS1992 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a series of changes, attempting to logically group them amongst multiple edits. I will continue to do so here and there. I have only removed or modified content that I believe is indisputably inappropriate. I have no connection with the organization nor am I involved in or affected by any of the issues surrounding it. Jaamison (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

requested edit -- due to

Please remove the text -- in the lede -- "due to regulatory inspections that found toxic emissions and/or leakages of lead and cadmium.[1]" as this is not at all supported by the source cited, and is therefore directly misleading. MPS1992 (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the provided source doesn't justify the sentence. The article text now says "..former recycling plants in Frisco, Texas and Vernon, California have been closed in 2012 and 2013 due to regulatory inspections that found toxic emissions and/or leakages of lead and cadmium.." The reference merely notes that those plants are closed but doesn't specify the reason. Does anyone else want to comment on this question? EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source dumping ground

Just dumping this here before I request it and the promotional content sourced to it be removed:

More to follow. MPS1992 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit -- removal of some promotional items, and History to be the first section after lede

Please remove the following unduly promotional text (all in the History section, and appearing in this order):

  • to better compete in the market
  • that generated significant new capital
  • state of the art
  • On June 15, 2018, Exide celebrated 130 Years of Powering Forward.[122]

(There are one or two more, along with some better wording of the section, that I will place in a later request.)

Please move the History section to be the first section after the lede. This seems a sensible and widely-used layout for an article about a corporation with a 100+ year history that also has significant modern operations, and has already been proposed above without objection. MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition after 24 hours.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit -- move History to be first section after lede

Please move the History section to be the first section after the lede. This seems a sensible and widely-used layout for an article about a corporation with a 100+ year history that also has significant modern operations, and has already been proposed above without objection. MPS1992 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Missed that part of the request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exide pollution - LA area

Sources for future additions to this article:

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Four "Exide" Batteries

The 4 "Exide" Batteries: "Exide", "Hycap Exide", "Thin Exide", "Ironclad Exide"

The 4 "Exide" Batteries: "Exide", "Hycap Exide", "Thin Exide", "Ironclad Exide"

Jamplevia (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exide&oldid=1207737735"