Talk:ESCO Group

Pollution Controversy
"Fed up with what the group views as weak enforcement of air quality, Neighbors for Clean Air decided to do its own research. Crunching pollution numbers available on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website, group member Bob Holmstrom found that the ESCO steel plant five blocks from Chapman Elementary had doubled its emissions of metals into the air from 2002 to 2007." "Though it strives to be the greenest city in America, an exhaustive USA Today study found that six of Portland's schools were in the worst percentile nationwide for air toxins. That puts Portland's school air quality on par with that of Cleveland, Ohio." "Industrial air pollution in Northwest Portland is significantly worse than in other parts of the city, and ESCO Corporation is the main reason why. That conclusion can be drawn from an eight-month study by USA Today applying U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data and modeling to public and private school locations across the country." "For each of the seven Northwest schools, the No. 1 source of pollution was ESCO, which has a steel foundry near Northwest Vaughn Street on 25th Avenue and another off Northwest Yeon Avenue. The primary chemicals emitted by these foundries were ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyaeou (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC) "Northwest Portland activists raised the issue of manganese pollution from ESCO foundries near Chapman Elementary after a USA Today report last December that ranked Chapman among U.S. schools most at risk from industrial pollution."
 * I added a request for deletion given the December 2008 tag at the top of the article "This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use db-spam to mark for speedy deletion. (December 2008)"
 * I added this Pollution Controversy section to offer some additional information about ESCO in case a re-write will be done. Please add this controversy to the article.
 * Some articles below from 2009-2010. Every year there are numerous articles in the Portland and area press and television about the widespread, and growing, outrage among a substantial number of Portland residents, business leaders, education leaders, political leaders, etc, about the intense and greatly harmful pollution ESCO is producing and subjecting a massive area of Portland to, including several elementary schools and thousands of residents who receive immediate/direct emissions.
 * http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/breathing-wheezy/Content?oid=1572217
 * http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/portland_neighborhood_group_de.html
 * http://www.nwexaminer.com/issues/xEarlierIssues/4April2009.pdf
 * http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/08/17/story3.html
 * http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/05/portland_parents_tackle_indust.html
 * http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/06/23/something-smells-rotten-in-northwest-portland/
 * http://www.times.org/archives/2009/chromevi.html
 * http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/12/oregon_to_review_health_benchm.html

Chapman Elementary is located about 1/3 mile from central ESCO. ESCO is visibly somewhat hidden behind several streets of residences and some streets of various kinds of small businesses; and ESCO's smokestacks are low to the ground such that they can not be seen unless within a block of the smoke stacks.

2nd article from the top; continued on page 21:
 * http://www.nwexaminer.com/issues/xEarlierIssues/03March2010.pdf
 * "...a December 2008 USA Today story, “The Smokestack Effect: Toxic Air and America’s Schools,” that ranked the air around Chapman and other Northwest Portland schools among the 2 percent most polluted in the nation. In essence, it said school children are exposed to some of America’s most unhealthy air, largely due to ESCO’s toxic fumes."
 * Iyaeou (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you integrate the above Pollution Controversy section into the article? Or could you start the process so I and hopefully others can then make suggestions for additional editing?
 * Note Escocorp has been involved in editing:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ESCO_Corporation&oldid=259027245
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ESCO_Corporation&oldid=259025641
 * There may be other edits by this person, and other similar persons.
 * Please add the tag for this, eg, that some editors are personally involved in the article, etc.--Iyaeou (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to edit the article and fix it yourself. Be bold.  If you make any mistakes, I'll help fix them, and certainly others will be along to help too.  —EncMstr (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

speedy delete request
I've declined the request for speedy deletion since the subject is clearly notable particularly due to all its press (negative and otherwise) and operation since 1913. The article is unduly weighted with promotional language, but it since it has history and a decent overview, it falls short of being blatant advertising. It looks like deleting a few sentences and sections should help a lot. —EncMstr (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page to ESCO Group at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

ESCO Corporation → ESCO Group LLC – company name changed WB Born (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The company name change does not mean the article title should be changed until secondary sources start to use the new name. And any new title certainly should not include the incorporation suffix. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still learning to edit pages. In this context, what would be considered "secondary sources"? WB Born (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WB Born, please see No original research for more information. Dekimasu よ! 20:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the guideline that usually excludes "LLC", see Naming conventions (companies). Dekimasu よ! 21:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry, but I think this is a little bit ridiculous. We have been given two sources, linked references in the article:
 * This news release says: "ESCO products will continue to be marketed and sold under the ESCO brand."
 * This source (which I saw was distributed to at least one other publication) says: "ESCO Corporation will operate as a standalone business as part of Weir for the duration of 2018, with integration beginning in 2019."
 * Clearly the common name for this is simply ESCO, but that's the acronym for energy service company so we can't use it.
 * That leaves us looking at the options for disambiguation per WP:NCCORP. We could use the parenthetical (company): ESCO (company), or we could use the legal status to disambiguate, using the company's own preference for either the abbreviated or unabbreviated form: ESCO Group or ESCO Group LLC. I can support moving to any one of those three options.
 * What we can't do is just leave it at the current title, which would change the scope of the article to be about the historical company, before their acquisition by Weir Group.
 * And a trout to that news reporter for not writing "ESCO Corporation, renamed ESCO Group, will operate as a standalone business as part of Weir for the duration of 2018, with integration beginning in 2019." as if their readers were children who needed such details explained to them. wbm1058 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would prefer ESCO Group as a natural disambiguation which avoids the LLC suffix. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Foundry ladle pour.jpg