Talk:Westinghouse Electric Corporation/Archives/2012

Merger with CBS
Where it says 1995 - buys CBS I believe it was the reverse, It was CBS who purchased Westinghouse so that they could get to Westinghouse's Group W broadcasting division. Misterrick 00:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it was definitely Westinghouse that did the buying of CBS. They subsequently renamed themselves to CBS Corporation (after divesting most of the non-broadcasting portions). (I worked for them at the time they bought CBS.) --Paul 63.237.124.70 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Slogan
Westinghouse was using the slogan "You can be SURE... if it's Westinghouse." in 1952, so it certainly didn't adopt that slogan in the '60s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT_zvRy-s-M 68.14.177.48 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Ralph

Move
There is a Requested Moves survey going on at Talk:Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1998) about the names of these articles. Ian3055 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Westinghouse Electric
TECO (Tiwan Electric Company) purchaced the Westinghouse name for it's motors and VFD drives about 1998. They have a limited supply of Westinghouse Motor parts and prints and do manufacture some of the parts on larger motors.

What about Siemens?
Currently the article doesn't mention at all that much of the former core business power generation (especially gas turbines) was sold to Siemens in the late 90s and became Siemens Westinghouse. See also: Westinghouse Combustion Turbine Systems Division. --Tetris L (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

TQM?
I learned in a college business course that Westinghouse developed the concept of TQM (or quality circles), but everything I read on Wikipedia indicates it was invented by the Japanese. My professor claimed this was a common misconception. Does anyone know if he was full of it or if Westinghouse really did develop these concepts? &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a reliable source - you can sift though google ("quality circle" westinghouse) and get various comments comment about 1980 for instance. The Wikipedia topic flattens several names for related concepts into one pile - perhaps Westinghouse was/was not the first to name their slice of this "quality circle".  (Your professor should not refer to "misconception" without offering an explanation of which concept is involved ;-) Tedickey (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

External Link with historical info and photos of Westinghouse founding and founders
I added an external link to. It was removed with the edit summary "little about Westinghouse and lots about antique sockets; removed external link". I disagree. The linked site has much info about the early years of Westinghouse's founding including a link to this particularly nice chart showing The Development Of The General Electric And Westinghouse Companies From 1872 Until 1896. As per the "Be bold, revert, discuss" paradigm, discuss. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be as the other editor described, lots of trivia about antique light sockets, and a very few paragraphs about George and his Co. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just put Google.com as an external link in every article, in case we miss any. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Treating your suggestion seriously, as opposed to as some sort of rhetorical slippery slope device, we probably don't want to do that because it would help neither someone coming to the article for information nor someone wanting to improve an article with few references. As for the link I added, I think it serves both those functions, but if no one else thinks so (or the consensus is no) after a couple days, I'll take it upon myself to come back and remove the link. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * External links aren't because an external site has useful relevant information. External links are to get important information into Wikipedia we can't get any other way, due to copyright restrictions. If the chart is so helpful, make a chart *here* and refer back to the site as reference (better yet, refer to the *original* reference the external site used). --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:EL, "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". Another purpose is avoiding copyright violation. And yes, I do hope that I or someone else will have the time to add the useful information directly into the article.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As promised, the link is now gone.Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuity of corporate identity
One division of the original 1886 industrial company Westinghouse Electric Corp. still exists as Westinghouse Electric Company, just as the original AT&T lives on as AT&T. It would be absurd to say that the original AT&T died when it was acquired by SBC which changed its name to AT&T. Likewise it is absurd to say the the old Westinghouse Electric Corp. died when its nuclear energy division was split off from its broadcasting division. The nuclear energy division of the original Westinghouse Electric Corp. lives on as Westinghouse Electric Company in Butler County, PA which preserves the industrial legacy of the original Westinghouse Electric Corp. That linkage should be made clear in the 1886 article, even though Westinghouse Electric Company has a separate article. Greensburger (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not really. AT&T was absorbed whole by SBC, which is not the case for the former nuclear division of Westinghouse Electric. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What matters is not the complex legal details of the mergers and divestitures that link the old Westinghouse to the new Westinghouse, but rather the fact that a division of the old Westinghouse still exists as the new Westinghouse. Greensburger (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not new, it just never stopped using the name Westinghouse. But if it considers itself to be the legacy of Westinghouse, then that's a little different. We still need a source that says that. - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)