Talk:LG Chem

Written like an advertisement
It looks to me it's written a bit like an advertisement, anyone see this? CreepyMan (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

One-thousand million?
"LG Chem completed development and began mass production of Korea’s first lithium-ion batteries back in 1999. At the end of 2011, LG chem is the world’s third-largest maker with an annual production capacity of 1,000 million cells. It is also main supplier of automotive battery for electric Vehicles."

1,000 million? What does this mean? I know there are more issues in this article, but this not only violates the rules of displaying/pronouncing numbers, it has no citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.238.208 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LG Chem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67IJYJu5T?url=http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=32959 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=32959

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LG Chem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130911174044/http://www.insideview.com/directory/lg-chem-ltd to http://www.insideview.com/directory/lg-chem-ltd
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724083711/http://www.compactpower.com/Documents/cpi_gm_development_program.pdf to http://www.compactpower.com/Documents/cpi_gm_development_program.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Visakhapatnam gas leak in the lead
Hey there! I think that the inclusion of two lengthy sentences about the Visakhapatnam gas leak in the lead is unfair and should be removed. While this was absolutely a tragedy, it has little to do with LG Chem itself at the moment - this could have happened at any plant of any company, as it appears that this wasn't purposeful and simply a side-effect of COVID-19 lockdowns restricting the amount of monitoring combined with a spontaneous glitch. Someone who wants to find out about LG Chem as a company is probably unlikely to seriously care about a gas leak (or not care enough to think it's a defining moment of the company as inclusion in the lead would suggest). ItsPugle (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agree with you, the incident shouldn't be at the lead. Also someone added the incident to the LG corp template which is irrelevant to the template. SUN EYE 1  08:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it shouldn't be in the lead, but it was certainly a very significant incident at one of the company's premises. Therefore it should be mentioned in the article & included in the template. Jim Michael (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Although blunt, this tragic accident has little meaningful to do with LG Chem as a corporation. Just because it occured at a property owned by one of LG Chem's subsideraries, doesn't mean that it's important to the company (or important to someone trying to read up about the company). As I said, I'm all for having it in the accidents and incidents section, but it simply doesn't merit inclusion in the company's template or this article's lead. ItsPugle (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a major, fatal incident that has a lot to do with the company. It's important to the company & they'll have to investigate it. Jim Michael (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The facts of the gas leak aren't questioned here, I totally agree that this was a tragedy and that many people have died, but that doesn't change my stance that it isn't significant enough. The established precedent is that such material isn't worthy of inclusion. For example, the 2012 Dhaka garment factory fire - you don't see comments about this tragedy (which killed many more and has sent shockwaves through the entire fashion industry for years) plastered on the C&A article or the Walmart article. This is because the relationship between the company and its production plant is minor, just as it is with LG Chem - India's own Human Rights Commission even distances LG Polymers India (and by extension, even further distances LG Chem) from the incident: "there are no reports regarding human error or negligence" . If we had an article on LG Polymers India, then absolutely put it on that article's templates and lead and everything, but I don't find anywhere near enough evidence to support its inclusion on the LG Corp template (I mean, that's four-times removed) or any article at this level. I feel personally that the inclusion of it in the Accidents and Incidents section is generous enough as is, and anything more would be crossing that line. I should just reiteration though, that these are my opinions and that I'm just here to give my input to build a meaningful and friendly consensus :) ItsPugle (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)