This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
NOT uzavtosanoa ! http://www.uzavtosanoat.uz/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.246.155 ( talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a pageful of GM execs and about a dozen references for them. Some of them don't have a WP article and they're not particularly notable except to GM insiders and car industry watchers. I don't think it's necessary to list so many in an encyclopedia unless they have had a notable (i.e. profound) effect on the company. Usually just the CEO and maybe CFO, president, and COB in the infobox suffices. The founder and anyone else can go in the history or relevant sections based on their major contributions. A link to the company website should be adequate for other mgmt. Facts707 ( talk) 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Saab is not a defund brand:
It's Trollhattan plant is laboring, all of it's range is being produced.
It's true that a liquidation process as begun, but it's also true that the sale process of the brand continues in parallel.
In the future, it's possible that Saab will be a defunct brand. Or not.
This is the present, and Saab is not a defund brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.77.164 ( talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I read today (2-25-10) that GM has decided to discontinue Hummer after negotiations with Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd fell apart. 112.201.193.73 ( talk) 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The ownership part of the infobox reads that the Government of Canada's partial ownership is in fact the Monarchy of Canada. This has been falsely represented in the infobox. The monarchy of Canada has nothing to do with the governments ownership. It needs to be changed. I have tried but an editor with special interests in the monarchy seems to be reverting it back. Po' buster ( talk) 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have redirected them to the monarch section of each article. The redirect needs to go straight to the article, not to the monarch. Once again the monarch has NOTHING to do with the ownership. Po' buster ( talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(out) The 8-K form refers to "The U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury)" and "the governments of Canada and Ontario". [2] We do not know the names for Canada and Ontario that appear on the share certificates, but nationally it is a subsidiary of the CDIC (possibly a numbered corporation, but not the CIDC itself). I would point out that the Queen-in-Council does not own anything, it is the Queen in right of Canada, etc. I do not mind if the names on the shareholder register are disclosed in the article, but the article should explain the economic reality - that three governments bailed them out. TFD ( talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
We should use Government of Canada & Government of Ontario. We don't need to over-do it on the Monarchy stuff. GoodDay ( talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have skimmed though not fully read this section and want to point out that we seem to be at about that point where an arcane discussion like this spills over from tangentially relevant to excessively digressive and even disruptive. I hope after two months that both sides would acknowledge that it should not be decided between two or three editors at the talk page for General Motors what to term the government(s) of Canada. I doubt the Queen of England was consulted on the GM deal, so my uneducated but rational guess would be that any flowery language that might mention her in connection to such emergency economic actions of the Canadian government is overly formal, primarily ceremonial, and inessential to the point that GM has received the assistance of more than one government. Some things, even if/when true, are simply not relevant to note once you get as far removed from the primary article as we are here. I don't believe we've seen a reference that any reliable source addresses this deal in terms of the Queen, and to extrapolate that Wikipedia should buck that trend to introduce her here seems against both Wikipedia policy for sourcing and against common sense. If I am wrong or contrary to the spirit of the truth as can be illustrated by some sort of legitimate source, please take the discussion to a forum wherein those more involved with affairs of state and state terminology may cite and review WP:Reliable sources and Wiki policies to prove that, as such consensus would surely require some corrective editorial work beyond General Motors. Abrazame ( talk) 22:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As recent as April 21, 2010 General Motors Company has revised its logo. For citation visit the following link. http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/quietly-gm-changes-its-logo-91176/. My purpose in this is inform and suggest the necessary changes that I am unable to make since I am an unconfirmed user. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazel91 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"GM received loans from European governments in 2009, and has reduced its ownership stake in European operations as part of its reorganization." (under Company overview) Looks like it need update. North wiki ( talk) 22:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
U.S. sales information upto April 2010: As Saab was sold at the end of Feb., shouldn't the first two months' sales of Saab be considered as part of G.M.'s sales? North wiki ( talk) 19:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This section doesn't belong here. It should be moved to General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization. Recent events are not inherently the most important information about a company, see WP:RECENTISM. -- Vossanova o< 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Someone needs to move it. Bill Heller ( talk) 21:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning the rides (such as Test Track) at the DIsney parks that GM have sponsored? For that matter, is it worth mentioning Michael Moore in any way?-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 17:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Discontinued Brands section, the Canadian Envoy links to Vauxhall Victor, which is a model and not a brand. That article reads:
This is all way before my time: if I'm in error in removing it from this list, please correct the Vauxhall Victor article and revert my edit here. Abrazame ( talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
should Holden and GM Daewoo be mentioned in the third paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.92.237 ( talk) 03:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings all, Under Section 1.2 regarding Management, the space for Vice Chairman of Global Product Operations currently links to the wiki page for Thomas, which should read as Thomas G. Stephens, per the correct citation. Also, how would the community feel if entries were created for Stephens as well as Timothy E. Lee and David N. Reilly based on the current cited biographies so this section of the entry contains no links to non-existant pages? GMArchivist ( talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Should this item be part of the GM article?
- Anyone who purchased GM stock in the past 50 years and held the stock would be losing money on GM stock. [1] tuco_bad 15:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Nothing about how the Unions brought down GM? NPOV, yes! Very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.164 ( talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is the logo changed? Really! The Square blue logo is still their logo!!! Keep it up there. And the U.S. Government is not the only owner of GM! Change this page back to what it use to look like!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikidockd ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
GM stocks were offered and according to the NY Times, the government halved its share in GM. -- And Rew 03:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is needed about what do do in this situation. Please contribute! The most recent page I could find that is clearly free of a systematic sequence of copyright violations and major destructive edits is 11:38, 13 November 2010. These edits were responsible for rewriting the article as a non- NPOV advertisement and eliminated substantial content. Reverting to 11:38, 13 November 2010 will destroy all constructive edits from the last two weeks. I personally feel that this is the most expedient way of eliminating the copyright violation and restoring the article. I and others can then proceed to merge more recent constructive edits with the copyvio-free source.
The following pertains only to specific sections that have been removed, and does not address the full extent of copyright violation in the article. byronshock ( talk) 09:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Material was copied from: http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.emb.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Mar/10NYAS/chevrolet/0328_cruze_wtcc http://www.corvetteracing.com/2010-overview.shtml . The identified infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. byronshock ( talk) 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC) byronshock
Someone changed the owners of GM to "US Government." The article used to list proper ownership fractions. Does anyone know what the new ownership division is, post-IPO? Andrew76 ( talk) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The NY Times reported "about 29 percent" government ownership of shares: See this article.
"GM employs 205,000 people in every major region of the world"
Do they employ 205,000 people in every major region of the world OR does GM employ 205,000 people and they are in every region of the world? If they do not have 205,000 employees in every major region of the world then the grammar needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.234.65 ( talk) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this article is way too pro GM. There isn't a criticism section for the article? No mention of why bankruptcy happened? I have a feeling that a GM employee has been writing/editing this article in an attempt to entice buyers of cars/stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyynym25 ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to nominate the article so it can be checked for neutrality, based on my previous comments Nyynym25 ( talk) 07:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Nyynym25
Part of "Racing Heritage" is almost verbatim from http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.emb.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Mar/10NYAS/chevrolet/0328_cruze_wtcc . I am going to delete and tag as appropriate. byronshock ( talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that there was a full article rewrite on the 13th which added so much POV/copyrighted text. It does seem like a IPO plug, in retrospect. Best to revert and start fresh. -- Vossanova o< 14:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The opening paragraph states, "General Motors' largest national market is the People's Republic of China, followed by the United States..." Yet in your graph under market share it clearly lists the US as the largest market in both number of cars (2,981 thousands versus China's 1,095, or more than double sales in US) and in market share too. What's the big idea, guys? 124.87.99.6 ( talk) 01:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Some documentation for GM's yearly Chinese sales exceeding those in the US in 2010: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-autos-gm-20110125,0,5849923.story "General Motors Co. sold more vehicles in China than it did in the U.S. last year [2010], [2,351,610 vs. 2,215, 227.] ‘This is the wave of the future,’ said George Magliano, an economist at IHS Automotive. 'The Chinese market is going to grow faster than the U.S., and it will continue to be this way.' " 173.210.125.42 ( talk) 18:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was a new editor user:Cazel1991 allowed to rip the article apart? Gumbogumby ( talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
A thought on the founding date in the header of the article. It lists 1908 as the founding year. However, the current company that is called "General Motors" was not founded in 1908. The 1908 date should move to "Motors Liquidation Corporation" article and the new GM's founding year should be added to this article. 136.181.195.33 ( talk) 20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone keeps trying to remove any direct mention of the fact that GM went bankrupt. That's a bit much. -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that it still uses the blue "GM" logo on this page, but GM has pretty much discontinued that logo, now it is just "General Motors" in white Ariel font. Can you change it to the current logo? 75.118.250.122 ( talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
General Motors is not called "General Motors Company", it's just "General Motors". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.202.112 ( talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
To keep this article accurate, General Motors Corporation, founded in 1908, changed its name to Motors Liquidation Company, and still exists. This company is the subject of this article. Another company of unknown founding, NGMCO Incorporated, purchased its assets in July 2009. After GM Corp. changed its name, NGMCO changed its name to General Motors LLC. It is this company, originally founded as NGMCO, which is the predecessor to todays GM. The companies it bought assets of, GM included but not exclusively, does not mean it takes their founding dates. The founding date of this NGMCO Inc. should be ascertained, and placed along side the 1908 number in the InfoBox. Int21h ( talk) 01:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I find the ordering of the contents, as well as the omission of past controversies, paints a biased picture in favour of General Motors. I assume they have hired staff to monitor this page to avoid bad press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.59.146 ( talk) 18:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a small clarification: GM was founded as General Motors Company in 1908, and was incorporated as General Motors Corporation in 1916, post its merger with Chevrolet.
Not wanting to clutter the lead with such details, I think its best to not mention all this AJ-India ( talk) 03:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
While it is pretty clear that GM will finish the year as the world's largest automaker, they year is not over yet. I have fixed the intro and added a "Rankings" section that explains what is going on. Rankings are established ONCE PER YEAR, and not at halftime. Official rankings are declared by OICA, not by a blog or a newspaper. Please DO NOT EDIT this unless new official rankings are announced. This edit reflects rankings announced in early August 2011. I will add a similar section at the other contenders. Thank you. BsBsBs ( talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"The company has moved from a corporate-endorsed hybrid brand architecture structure, where GM underpinned every brand to a multiple brand corporate invisible brand architecture structure.[77]"
It would be great if someone familiar with this particular variety of jargon could translate it into everyday English for the average reader. -- Jfruh ( talk) 22:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize this has probably been discussed at length, and the many Defenders of the Article had their reasons for rejecting it (as seen above), but I still found it highly disturbing that there was absolutely no direct mention or link whatsoever in this GM article to the formation and spin-off (or whatever) under GM's Bankruptcy of
Motors Liquidation Company, or "The Old GM" as it is commonly referred to in the media. I came to the GM page specifically looking for a casual link to MLC, having forgotten the exact name of it and wanting more info. I know we want to keep things tidy here, but in the short "Chapter 11 reorganization" (Bankruptcy) section should at least mention the "Old GM" assets, and provide a w-link to it. In fact, I wonder if some sort of "also" or "not to be confused with" template is needed at the top, and then a link at the "see also" section at the end. Being somewhat
bold I've done the latter, but I am really not in the mood to draw down wrathful lectures about POV, from the "pro-GM" crowd, bless their dedicated and fervent hearts. --
T-dot (
Talk/
contribs )
16:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand this has been brought up multiple times in the past, but I cannot seem to find a clear-cut answer as to why this article cannot be tagged as "Neutrality Disputed." I do not edit often (I usually just do grammar/syntax), but I am a well read and intelligent person, and I would like to believe that I am able to distinguish a neutral article from one that contains obvious bias. This article is written like a letter to a potential GM investor. For example:
How is including Mr. Whitacre's announcement of their money-back guarantee at all relevant to the corporate governance or his stepping down from his position? There are two potential reasons I believe this was included: one is that it was part of the same sentence in the article, and another is that the article editor felt it necessary to include some advertising in line with something actually relevant. I would very much like to verify the source on this, but conveniently, it comes from a subscriber-only article on the Wall Street Journal.
Another issue under the same Corporate Governance heading is the Financial Results section. Quite conveniently, the only results discussed are those from the years following GM's government buyout, starting with the first year they saw an upturn in vehicle sales. If there is to be a section discussing GM's finances, why not include a slightly bigger picture (without detailing the entire buyout, Chapter 11 reorganization, etc., as there is a separate article for that) including years leading up to the company's bankruptcy? Alternatively, why even include this section if there is an entire article on the Chapter 11 reorganization? Ultimately, I believe the best solution would be to expand this section to include a detailed history of GM's financial results and relocate it to the History of General Motors article.
The final issue I'll address is the (again, previously brought up) lack of a "Criticisms" section. If an "Environmental Initiatives" section is considered to be fair game for this article, then a general "Criticisms" section should be as well. Instead, we find the pro-GM environmental initiatives on the main General Motors article, and the company's criticisms on another arguably less-prominent article. Again, I feel a logical solution for this would be to either relocate the Environmental Initiatives section to the History of General Motors article, or conversely, relocate the Criticisms section to the General Motors article.
I have changed one line in this article, and I'm not sure if it was due to bias or poor editing, but the sentence under the heading North America in the World Presence section stated that the buyout enabled GM to "continue to build high-quality, safe, and fuel-efficient vehicles," when in reality, this is a quote from a speech President Barack Obama gave concerning the General Motors reorganization. It is a totally subjective and opinionated statement, and its source (Dept. of Energy website) makes no effort disguise it as anything other than that, so I am inclined to believe that the editor blatantly attempted to pass it off as a "fact."
I find it hard to believe that this article is not tagged with disputed neutrality, especially with this being an article on the world's largest automaker and one of the (if not the) largest corporations in the United States. Input on this would be greatly appreciated. Illini407 talk 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
and quality of cars, especially opel/wauxhall brands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.147.212 ( talk) 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no line between the last and before-last rows of the first table in that section -- at least I can't see it on my PC. But when I edit the article, and then SHOW PREVIEW, then this line is shown. After returning back to normal view, either by SAVE PAGE or CANCEL, that line vanishes again. Do others see the same problem? How to solve it? -- L.Willms ( talk) 08:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The restructuring of GM has allowed the company to continue to produce high-quality, safe, and fuel-efficient cars.[2]
Subjective opinion about the state of the operations, working to improve , 1st offline, then posted back here. Richard416282 ( talk) 14:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Why General Motors is included in the "WikiProject Canada"? the company is American, not Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
How did it happen that cars are the only cited GM products? Just making a quick search I found these other GM product vehicles:
And these others, GM products until the early 2000s:
The above items should be added to the article. Dogru144 ( talk) 01:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The tagging of the lead section for relevance seems to me to be unjustified, and a question on the help desk has raised concerns about the reason why this may have been done. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how the supposed issue might be addressed, or any objections to removing the tag? - Ka renjc 10:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
General Motors Company !
General ! I am here you got it from outside of the USA how to look like the cars outside and inside must be in quality including the colours and look at the Opel Insignia to do like the Cars and the Car Of The Year USA 2013: what i want is no GMC sign on the cars that is a mistake and no discribings like numbers and other signs only Metalic: and: a project: GENERAL : writing like you see here: you know the meaning of GENERAL : and the other all cars without GENERAL and GMC : GMC: is a discribing you know it from the school and College that is a mistakes : clean the cars: and oe project: GENERAL: and General Motors Company needs a sign like: the car of the year USA: and Sport Cars: i take six Cars you got it from all companies and 65 % + 45 % + 10 % + 85 % every year or 45 % and three from your Car groups look what is available for GMC every year 85 % or three from your groups and from all your groups 65 % : three cars for my wife i will marry here USA : three sport cars: like Hummer H2 Sports Turbo : Turbo Selection TS 13: 13 is for 2013: and this cars no signs and no numbers and three cars like Hummer H2 Sports: like: Corvette to put in the BMW Z4 3.0 i: like and like: Nissan the Sports Car looks like BMW Z4 3.0 i: looks like Corvette Sports: and the Hummer H2 looks like too Corvette and all cars look like an: EAGLE: you can do it like: Scorpion: like Scorpion: the cars and look like the Corvette SPorts all three cars: this are the different projects for my wife and Toyota is doing the Eagle for my wife and this are the first three cars: a lot of Hummer H2 look like a Puzzle that is not available clean the cars: and a Laptop inside and GPS and all modern and Electric, Gas, Sun energy all in three and the cars are to expensive you can the BMW ... for 21.000 Dollars if no sale do it for 18.000 Dollars you have to look what is importent to sale the cars and to in one you can do Gas and electric for 49.000 Dollars if the cars are 68.000 Dollars or 85.000 Dollars two cars you are sale if the cars are 49.000 Dollars five cars five customers you win: 245.000 Dollars by two Cars for 85.000 DOllars=170.000 Dollars you win 245.000-170.000 Dollars 75.000 DOllars you win ?: you have to look not to expensive the cars and the Opel Insignia you can do it for as project 44.000 Dollars to look you can win costomers or not and all Cars : are the Cars expensive the Customers going to other Companies where they can get cheaper Cars: and ask the Customers for their wishes what do they want to give out for a Car do it right: the three projects are for my wife she will be: and look at the Hummer H2 Wheels there are to much hole to the Metalic and Gold around the holes inside and outside too do it right there are only one life: Truck Hummer H2 Sports: as Energy back Porsche: do what you like but do it right: GMC must to away from the Cars that look terrible: General: project: and all Cars new Cars without all discribings and numbers: and a Handy in the Cars and 13 touch screen Pens to write 39 TOuch Screen Pens: that is for you GMC i am here there is so much to do: 65 % or 35 Billon DOllars + 45 % and and and you got it all what to do i am here so much to do in the USA ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.21.2 ( talk) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Viewer (
talk •
contribs)
User:Tokyogirl79 wordlessly reverted an edit by User:Kareem179 regarding the pension transfer. Even cases of clear vandalism deserve at least an edit note. After looking at the edit, I would say that it might not have been in the totally proper place (I would have put it under Chapter11,) and that the sources could be better (I found many, WSJ, Fortune, the wire services.) However, a $29 billion transaction definitely is notable. The uncovered pension fund was at the heart of the bankruptcy matter, and it should warrant a bit more reflection. I suggest that the editors restore, improve, and amplify the edit a bit. BsBsBs ( talk) 07:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewer ( talk • contribs)
The following assertion is made in the "History" section:
"Along the way, a failure to obtain government loans caused GM to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2009, following the recession of 2008, 2009."
I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, but certainly there were far more reasons for GM's Chapter 11 in 2009 than just failure to obtain Government loans. This simply can't be true. GM needed the loans because it did not have enough cash from operations or adequate capital to sustain itself. So, it wasn't the lack of loans that led to the bankruptcy; it was the performance of the company. This section should be revised with verified information related to the following:
1) Management performance 2) Sales of new vehicles relative to the marketplace 3) Political issues (regulations/lack thereof) 4) Union / labor issues 5) Tax issues 6) International trade / performance
This is my own editorializing, but usually a company's poor performance is due to management performance. Referring to scholarly work on the performance of GM management pre and post bankruptcy would probably be valuable (if such scholarly work exists).
BeatArmy89 ( talk) 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)BeatArmy89 May 24, 2013
Any plans to include this in the article? Based on the level of media coverage received and the high profile congressional and NHSTA investigations this would seem warranted. 108.172.112.92 ( talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Cleaned-up the intro a bit:
Some information in the last third should go below. BsBsBs ( talk) 15:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone clarify the information in the infobox? It is illogical for a company that was founded in 1908 to have a predecessor that existed from 1908 to 2009. Nyth83 ( talk) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! This account (GMCommunications) is run by General Motors Communication staff and one of GM’s agencies, FleishmanHillard. Our goal with this account is to assist the community with information and any questions that you may have about GM and provide links to primary and third-party sources that may help answer those questions here or at the Reference Desk.
In the spirit of full transparency, we posted this message to the Talk page as a standalone post to ensure it is seen by as many users as possible.
We will be tagging anything we post on this Talk page with an abbreviated disclaimer announcing the account’s GM and agency affiliation. We will not be making any direct edits to any Wikipedia page through this or any other account and look forward to discussing any proposed edits with the community.
We hope to become a resource for information and look forward to collaborating with the community.
GMcommunications ( talk) 15:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Caroline, GM Community Manager, August 26, 2014
Noticed this page had employment figures from 2012. Updated employment figures for the year 2014 can be found here: http://www.gm.com/company/aboutGM/our_company.html. The new number is 212,000.
PLEASE NOTE: This account is managed by GM and their agency, FleishmanHillard.
GMcommunications ( talk) 18:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Caroline, GM Community Manager
Thank you again for adding in the updates for the 2014 employee figures. After additional observation, we noticed some of our Corporate Officers under the Corporate Governance section are out of date. Below I have include some proposed content to update this section with the correct Officers.
In addition, we also noticed that company president Dan Ammann ( http://www.gm.com/company/corporate-officers/daniel-ammann) does not have his own page and when searched on Google, his photo is associated with a Swiss journalist with the same name. Do you have any suggestions or best practices on how to start a discussion about creating his own page?
Proposed Content [Under Corporate Governance section]
The following names and/or titles could be updated as:
UPDATE: Dr. Karl-Thomas Neuman's title to - GM Executive Vice President and President, GM Europe
REPLACE: Timothy E. Lee with Stefan Jacoby - Executive Vice President Consolidated International Operations
REPLACE: Melissa Howell with John J. Quattrone - Senior Vice President, GM Global Human Resources
REPLACE: Selim Bingol with Tony Cervone - Senior Vice President, Global Communications
Source: http://www.gm.com/company/corporate-officers Pete at GM ( talk) 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
GM in China In the “Asia” section of the page, I noticed the number of GM vehicles sold in China is not current and references figures from 2010. Included below are updated numbers for 2014 from GM and third-party sources below. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2015/01/14/gm-record-sales-chevy-sales-fall/21767247/ http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/Jan/0114-gm-2014-global-sales.html 198.208.159.19 ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Proposed Content [under “Asia” subsection of “World Presence” section] “Deliveries in China rose 12 percent to a record 3,539,972 in 2014 and the company’s estimated market share increased 0.6 percentage points to 14.8 percent.” 198.208.159.19 ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a article for a United States based car manufacturer so I think it should use American English, not British English. Doorknob747 ( talk) 15:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Hi all! Citation 29 leads to a different website than the one listed and citation 30 leads to a 404 page. Where are these supposed to actually go? Tiptop9227 ( talk) 11:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. I recommend two or five millennia before revisiting this; the end.</sarcasm> ( non-admin closure) George Ho ( talk) 01:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
General Motors → GM – Common Name 65.175.243.206 ( talk) 10:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The history section barely discusses the first 100 years (pre-2008) of this most illustrious auto manufacturer--it just glosses over the first hundred years in a couple of brief paragraphs. What a shame! The history section needs to be greatly expanded (I mean exponentially expanded). It could cover all of the great periods (i.e. 1908-2007) and create a sub-section for each: the early years, WWII and the roaring 20s, the 30s and early 40s (depression and WWII), postwar heyday (late 40s, 50's, 60s, early 70s), then years (energy crisis, downsizing, decline in popularity 1977-2007), etc. The article could include pictures of famous models from the various eras, including discontinued marques such as Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn, (maybe even mention Beaumont, the Canadian Marque), etc. We could mention famous engineers and designers such as Zora Duntov, Harley Earl, and Bill Mitchell. One gets little sense of GM's incredible history and glory days. Let's get dust off our automotive history books, folks, and gather sources to build this section up to what it should be! Garagepunk66 ( talk) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad that there is a separate article for the history. I just wish a little more was said here--it is so essential to our understanding of GM. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete at GM ( talk) 15:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the history section is very poor. While the ignition recall might be noteworthy, it shouldn't get more words than say Durant's board room coup in 1916. Really the ignition section should perhaps be moved to the controversy section rather than in one of the earliest sections. However, if this is a summary of the History of General Motors article then I would say keep the history really high level and the controversial stuff should simply not be in the history section. Springee ( talk) 21:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
References
This article seems like it may have haphazardly evolved over the years as people wanted to add new bits and pieces to the entry. It seems like the article is too focused on recent issues to be a good general article on the company. I suspect people have wanted to make sure recent controversies are included and thus they have been added front and center with out consideration for the overall flow and quality of the whole article. In addition to the controversy section being a mess, why does the small car section even exist? Why not a truck section or a section talking about the large number of non-personal auto businesses GM has been involved in over the years? I would propose restructuring much of the article. I think all of the controversial material (perhaps including the politics surrounding the 2010 bankruptcy) should be in one section. However, if others have ideas on that I'm very open to discussion there. I think the history section should be chronological and give approximately equal weight to each decade unless there is a notable exception. Are there other auto company articles that people might suggest as a good template for the layout of this article? Springee ( talk) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The controversy section seems to just dive into one particular issue (Natter) and then bounce into other issues in a haphazard way. I would suggest that controversies be listed in historical order and each as a subheading. For lack of a better place to put it I would also suggest we move the ignition topic and the lawsuit, both mentioned in the into history section, to the controversy section. Anyone oppose? Springee ( talk) 21:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, I agree that the bankruptcy is a very notable event in the company's history. My edit didn't actually remove it from the history section but instead linked to the specific topic page. My concern is WP:UNDUE. Certainly the bankruptcy is one of the biggest events in GM history. However, there are 100 years of that history and it seemed the short history section was 50% about the bankruptcy. Also some of the statements were possibly added with a WP:NPOV. Would you be willing to help me edit that section? Springee ( talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I reduced the length of the bankruptcy section by removing the second paragraph. It seemed like it could be a NPOV section but more importantly since there is a branch article on the subject the bankruptcy should probably be kept to just a single paragraph. Again, I'm not certain this is the best way to cover the material but I think it is better than what we had. Springee ( talk) 21:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
: Petrarchan47 Sorry, I think my above ping may not have gone through. Anyway, I think we have too much WP:WEIGHT in the bankruptcy section. Remember this is a company that has been around for 100 years. The bankruptcy was clearly a very important event but in the article it is 1/2 of the company's history. That is a weight issue. Remember there is a primary article on both the overall history and the bankruptcy so it's not like the information removed doesn't exist in a linked article. Please reply to this message. Springee ( talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
: Petrarchan47 , I think the "tax payer's money" phrase needs to go as it is a weasel word (well phrase, WP:WEASEL). "Government backed" or "government funded" are better phrases. Do you have a suggestion for changing that language? Springee ( talk) 01:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
: Petrarchan47 , sorry to ping you twice. I wanted to let you know I posted a question about the "taxpayer's money" phrasing on the
WP:NPOV notice board. I was curious what phrasing people might suggest.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Suggestions_for_phrasing
Springee (
talk)
01:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a table showing the number of vehicles sold in each of several countries with the US first and China second. But I think there should also be a table showing the number of vehicles manufactured in each country and the countries should be ranked. This might also be done by brand (Buick, Chevy, GMC, and Cadillac) for each country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:107:2C01:983:2287:3AB0:873A ( talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
NOT uzavtosanoa ! http://www.uzavtosanoat.uz/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.246.155 ( talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a pageful of GM execs and about a dozen references for them. Some of them don't have a WP article and they're not particularly notable except to GM insiders and car industry watchers. I don't think it's necessary to list so many in an encyclopedia unless they have had a notable (i.e. profound) effect on the company. Usually just the CEO and maybe CFO, president, and COB in the infobox suffices. The founder and anyone else can go in the history or relevant sections based on their major contributions. A link to the company website should be adequate for other mgmt. Facts707 ( talk) 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Saab is not a defund brand:
It's Trollhattan plant is laboring, all of it's range is being produced.
It's true that a liquidation process as begun, but it's also true that the sale process of the brand continues in parallel.
In the future, it's possible that Saab will be a defunct brand. Or not.
This is the present, and Saab is not a defund brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.77.164 ( talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I read today (2-25-10) that GM has decided to discontinue Hummer after negotiations with Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd fell apart. 112.201.193.73 ( talk) 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The ownership part of the infobox reads that the Government of Canada's partial ownership is in fact the Monarchy of Canada. This has been falsely represented in the infobox. The monarchy of Canada has nothing to do with the governments ownership. It needs to be changed. I have tried but an editor with special interests in the monarchy seems to be reverting it back. Po' buster ( talk) 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have redirected them to the monarch section of each article. The redirect needs to go straight to the article, not to the monarch. Once again the monarch has NOTHING to do with the ownership. Po' buster ( talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(out) The 8-K form refers to "The U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury)" and "the governments of Canada and Ontario". [2] We do not know the names for Canada and Ontario that appear on the share certificates, but nationally it is a subsidiary of the CDIC (possibly a numbered corporation, but not the CIDC itself). I would point out that the Queen-in-Council does not own anything, it is the Queen in right of Canada, etc. I do not mind if the names on the shareholder register are disclosed in the article, but the article should explain the economic reality - that three governments bailed them out. TFD ( talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
We should use Government of Canada & Government of Ontario. We don't need to over-do it on the Monarchy stuff. GoodDay ( talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have skimmed though not fully read this section and want to point out that we seem to be at about that point where an arcane discussion like this spills over from tangentially relevant to excessively digressive and even disruptive. I hope after two months that both sides would acknowledge that it should not be decided between two or three editors at the talk page for General Motors what to term the government(s) of Canada. I doubt the Queen of England was consulted on the GM deal, so my uneducated but rational guess would be that any flowery language that might mention her in connection to such emergency economic actions of the Canadian government is overly formal, primarily ceremonial, and inessential to the point that GM has received the assistance of more than one government. Some things, even if/when true, are simply not relevant to note once you get as far removed from the primary article as we are here. I don't believe we've seen a reference that any reliable source addresses this deal in terms of the Queen, and to extrapolate that Wikipedia should buck that trend to introduce her here seems against both Wikipedia policy for sourcing and against common sense. If I am wrong or contrary to the spirit of the truth as can be illustrated by some sort of legitimate source, please take the discussion to a forum wherein those more involved with affairs of state and state terminology may cite and review WP:Reliable sources and Wiki policies to prove that, as such consensus would surely require some corrective editorial work beyond General Motors. Abrazame ( talk) 22:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As recent as April 21, 2010 General Motors Company has revised its logo. For citation visit the following link. http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/quietly-gm-changes-its-logo-91176/. My purpose in this is inform and suggest the necessary changes that I am unable to make since I am an unconfirmed user. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazel91 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"GM received loans from European governments in 2009, and has reduced its ownership stake in European operations as part of its reorganization." (under Company overview) Looks like it need update. North wiki ( talk) 22:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
U.S. sales information upto April 2010: As Saab was sold at the end of Feb., shouldn't the first two months' sales of Saab be considered as part of G.M.'s sales? North wiki ( talk) 19:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This section doesn't belong here. It should be moved to General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization. Recent events are not inherently the most important information about a company, see WP:RECENTISM. -- Vossanova o< 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Someone needs to move it. Bill Heller ( talk) 21:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning the rides (such as Test Track) at the DIsney parks that GM have sponsored? For that matter, is it worth mentioning Michael Moore in any way?-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 17:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Discontinued Brands section, the Canadian Envoy links to Vauxhall Victor, which is a model and not a brand. That article reads:
This is all way before my time: if I'm in error in removing it from this list, please correct the Vauxhall Victor article and revert my edit here. Abrazame ( talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
should Holden and GM Daewoo be mentioned in the third paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.92.237 ( talk) 03:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings all, Under Section 1.2 regarding Management, the space for Vice Chairman of Global Product Operations currently links to the wiki page for Thomas, which should read as Thomas G. Stephens, per the correct citation. Also, how would the community feel if entries were created for Stephens as well as Timothy E. Lee and David N. Reilly based on the current cited biographies so this section of the entry contains no links to non-existant pages? GMArchivist ( talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Should this item be part of the GM article?
- Anyone who purchased GM stock in the past 50 years and held the stock would be losing money on GM stock. [1] tuco_bad 15:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Nothing about how the Unions brought down GM? NPOV, yes! Very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.164 ( talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is the logo changed? Really! The Square blue logo is still their logo!!! Keep it up there. And the U.S. Government is not the only owner of GM! Change this page back to what it use to look like!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikidockd ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
GM stocks were offered and according to the NY Times, the government halved its share in GM. -- And Rew 03:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is needed about what do do in this situation. Please contribute! The most recent page I could find that is clearly free of a systematic sequence of copyright violations and major destructive edits is 11:38, 13 November 2010. These edits were responsible for rewriting the article as a non- NPOV advertisement and eliminated substantial content. Reverting to 11:38, 13 November 2010 will destroy all constructive edits from the last two weeks. I personally feel that this is the most expedient way of eliminating the copyright violation and restoring the article. I and others can then proceed to merge more recent constructive edits with the copyvio-free source.
The following pertains only to specific sections that have been removed, and does not address the full extent of copyright violation in the article. byronshock ( talk) 09:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Material was copied from: http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.emb.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Mar/10NYAS/chevrolet/0328_cruze_wtcc http://www.corvetteracing.com/2010-overview.shtml . The identified infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. byronshock ( talk) 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC) byronshock
Someone changed the owners of GM to "US Government." The article used to list proper ownership fractions. Does anyone know what the new ownership division is, post-IPO? Andrew76 ( talk) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The NY Times reported "about 29 percent" government ownership of shares: See this article.
"GM employs 205,000 people in every major region of the world"
Do they employ 205,000 people in every major region of the world OR does GM employ 205,000 people and they are in every region of the world? If they do not have 205,000 employees in every major region of the world then the grammar needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.234.65 ( talk) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this article is way too pro GM. There isn't a criticism section for the article? No mention of why bankruptcy happened? I have a feeling that a GM employee has been writing/editing this article in an attempt to entice buyers of cars/stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyynym25 ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to nominate the article so it can be checked for neutrality, based on my previous comments Nyynym25 ( talk) 07:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Nyynym25
Part of "Racing Heritage" is almost verbatim from http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.emb.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Mar/10NYAS/chevrolet/0328_cruze_wtcc . I am going to delete and tag as appropriate. byronshock ( talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that there was a full article rewrite on the 13th which added so much POV/copyrighted text. It does seem like a IPO plug, in retrospect. Best to revert and start fresh. -- Vossanova o< 14:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The opening paragraph states, "General Motors' largest national market is the People's Republic of China, followed by the United States..." Yet in your graph under market share it clearly lists the US as the largest market in both number of cars (2,981 thousands versus China's 1,095, or more than double sales in US) and in market share too. What's the big idea, guys? 124.87.99.6 ( talk) 01:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Some documentation for GM's yearly Chinese sales exceeding those in the US in 2010: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-autos-gm-20110125,0,5849923.story "General Motors Co. sold more vehicles in China than it did in the U.S. last year [2010], [2,351,610 vs. 2,215, 227.] ‘This is the wave of the future,’ said George Magliano, an economist at IHS Automotive. 'The Chinese market is going to grow faster than the U.S., and it will continue to be this way.' " 173.210.125.42 ( talk) 18:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was a new editor user:Cazel1991 allowed to rip the article apart? Gumbogumby ( talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
A thought on the founding date in the header of the article. It lists 1908 as the founding year. However, the current company that is called "General Motors" was not founded in 1908. The 1908 date should move to "Motors Liquidation Corporation" article and the new GM's founding year should be added to this article. 136.181.195.33 ( talk) 20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone keeps trying to remove any direct mention of the fact that GM went bankrupt. That's a bit much. -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that it still uses the blue "GM" logo on this page, but GM has pretty much discontinued that logo, now it is just "General Motors" in white Ariel font. Can you change it to the current logo? 75.118.250.122 ( talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
General Motors is not called "General Motors Company", it's just "General Motors". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.202.112 ( talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
To keep this article accurate, General Motors Corporation, founded in 1908, changed its name to Motors Liquidation Company, and still exists. This company is the subject of this article. Another company of unknown founding, NGMCO Incorporated, purchased its assets in July 2009. After GM Corp. changed its name, NGMCO changed its name to General Motors LLC. It is this company, originally founded as NGMCO, which is the predecessor to todays GM. The companies it bought assets of, GM included but not exclusively, does not mean it takes their founding dates. The founding date of this NGMCO Inc. should be ascertained, and placed along side the 1908 number in the InfoBox. Int21h ( talk) 01:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I find the ordering of the contents, as well as the omission of past controversies, paints a biased picture in favour of General Motors. I assume they have hired staff to monitor this page to avoid bad press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.59.146 ( talk) 18:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a small clarification: GM was founded as General Motors Company in 1908, and was incorporated as General Motors Corporation in 1916, post its merger with Chevrolet.
Not wanting to clutter the lead with such details, I think its best to not mention all this AJ-India ( talk) 03:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
While it is pretty clear that GM will finish the year as the world's largest automaker, they year is not over yet. I have fixed the intro and added a "Rankings" section that explains what is going on. Rankings are established ONCE PER YEAR, and not at halftime. Official rankings are declared by OICA, not by a blog or a newspaper. Please DO NOT EDIT this unless new official rankings are announced. This edit reflects rankings announced in early August 2011. I will add a similar section at the other contenders. Thank you. BsBsBs ( talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"The company has moved from a corporate-endorsed hybrid brand architecture structure, where GM underpinned every brand to a multiple brand corporate invisible brand architecture structure.[77]"
It would be great if someone familiar with this particular variety of jargon could translate it into everyday English for the average reader. -- Jfruh ( talk) 22:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize this has probably been discussed at length, and the many Defenders of the Article had their reasons for rejecting it (as seen above), but I still found it highly disturbing that there was absolutely no direct mention or link whatsoever in this GM article to the formation and spin-off (or whatever) under GM's Bankruptcy of
Motors Liquidation Company, or "The Old GM" as it is commonly referred to in the media. I came to the GM page specifically looking for a casual link to MLC, having forgotten the exact name of it and wanting more info. I know we want to keep things tidy here, but in the short "Chapter 11 reorganization" (Bankruptcy) section should at least mention the "Old GM" assets, and provide a w-link to it. In fact, I wonder if some sort of "also" or "not to be confused with" template is needed at the top, and then a link at the "see also" section at the end. Being somewhat
bold I've done the latter, but I am really not in the mood to draw down wrathful lectures about POV, from the "pro-GM" crowd, bless their dedicated and fervent hearts. --
T-dot (
Talk/
contribs )
16:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand this has been brought up multiple times in the past, but I cannot seem to find a clear-cut answer as to why this article cannot be tagged as "Neutrality Disputed." I do not edit often (I usually just do grammar/syntax), but I am a well read and intelligent person, and I would like to believe that I am able to distinguish a neutral article from one that contains obvious bias. This article is written like a letter to a potential GM investor. For example:
How is including Mr. Whitacre's announcement of their money-back guarantee at all relevant to the corporate governance or his stepping down from his position? There are two potential reasons I believe this was included: one is that it was part of the same sentence in the article, and another is that the article editor felt it necessary to include some advertising in line with something actually relevant. I would very much like to verify the source on this, but conveniently, it comes from a subscriber-only article on the Wall Street Journal.
Another issue under the same Corporate Governance heading is the Financial Results section. Quite conveniently, the only results discussed are those from the years following GM's government buyout, starting with the first year they saw an upturn in vehicle sales. If there is to be a section discussing GM's finances, why not include a slightly bigger picture (without detailing the entire buyout, Chapter 11 reorganization, etc., as there is a separate article for that) including years leading up to the company's bankruptcy? Alternatively, why even include this section if there is an entire article on the Chapter 11 reorganization? Ultimately, I believe the best solution would be to expand this section to include a detailed history of GM's financial results and relocate it to the History of General Motors article.
The final issue I'll address is the (again, previously brought up) lack of a "Criticisms" section. If an "Environmental Initiatives" section is considered to be fair game for this article, then a general "Criticisms" section should be as well. Instead, we find the pro-GM environmental initiatives on the main General Motors article, and the company's criticisms on another arguably less-prominent article. Again, I feel a logical solution for this would be to either relocate the Environmental Initiatives section to the History of General Motors article, or conversely, relocate the Criticisms section to the General Motors article.
I have changed one line in this article, and I'm not sure if it was due to bias or poor editing, but the sentence under the heading North America in the World Presence section stated that the buyout enabled GM to "continue to build high-quality, safe, and fuel-efficient vehicles," when in reality, this is a quote from a speech President Barack Obama gave concerning the General Motors reorganization. It is a totally subjective and opinionated statement, and its source (Dept. of Energy website) makes no effort disguise it as anything other than that, so I am inclined to believe that the editor blatantly attempted to pass it off as a "fact."
I find it hard to believe that this article is not tagged with disputed neutrality, especially with this being an article on the world's largest automaker and one of the (if not the) largest corporations in the United States. Input on this would be greatly appreciated. Illini407 talk 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
and quality of cars, especially opel/wauxhall brands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.147.212 ( talk) 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no line between the last and before-last rows of the first table in that section -- at least I can't see it on my PC. But when I edit the article, and then SHOW PREVIEW, then this line is shown. After returning back to normal view, either by SAVE PAGE or CANCEL, that line vanishes again. Do others see the same problem? How to solve it? -- L.Willms ( talk) 08:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The restructuring of GM has allowed the company to continue to produce high-quality, safe, and fuel-efficient cars.[2]
Subjective opinion about the state of the operations, working to improve , 1st offline, then posted back here. Richard416282 ( talk) 14:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Why General Motors is included in the "WikiProject Canada"? the company is American, not Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
How did it happen that cars are the only cited GM products? Just making a quick search I found these other GM product vehicles:
And these others, GM products until the early 2000s:
The above items should be added to the article. Dogru144 ( talk) 01:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The tagging of the lead section for relevance seems to me to be unjustified, and a question on the help desk has raised concerns about the reason why this may have been done. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how the supposed issue might be addressed, or any objections to removing the tag? - Ka renjc 10:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
General Motors Company !
General ! I am here you got it from outside of the USA how to look like the cars outside and inside must be in quality including the colours and look at the Opel Insignia to do like the Cars and the Car Of The Year USA 2013: what i want is no GMC sign on the cars that is a mistake and no discribings like numbers and other signs only Metalic: and: a project: GENERAL : writing like you see here: you know the meaning of GENERAL : and the other all cars without GENERAL and GMC : GMC: is a discribing you know it from the school and College that is a mistakes : clean the cars: and oe project: GENERAL: and General Motors Company needs a sign like: the car of the year USA: and Sport Cars: i take six Cars you got it from all companies and 65 % + 45 % + 10 % + 85 % every year or 45 % and three from your Car groups look what is available for GMC every year 85 % or three from your groups and from all your groups 65 % : three cars for my wife i will marry here USA : three sport cars: like Hummer H2 Sports Turbo : Turbo Selection TS 13: 13 is for 2013: and this cars no signs and no numbers and three cars like Hummer H2 Sports: like: Corvette to put in the BMW Z4 3.0 i: like and like: Nissan the Sports Car looks like BMW Z4 3.0 i: looks like Corvette Sports: and the Hummer H2 looks like too Corvette and all cars look like an: EAGLE: you can do it like: Scorpion: like Scorpion: the cars and look like the Corvette SPorts all three cars: this are the different projects for my wife and Toyota is doing the Eagle for my wife and this are the first three cars: a lot of Hummer H2 look like a Puzzle that is not available clean the cars: and a Laptop inside and GPS and all modern and Electric, Gas, Sun energy all in three and the cars are to expensive you can the BMW ... for 21.000 Dollars if no sale do it for 18.000 Dollars you have to look what is importent to sale the cars and to in one you can do Gas and electric for 49.000 Dollars if the cars are 68.000 Dollars or 85.000 Dollars two cars you are sale if the cars are 49.000 Dollars five cars five customers you win: 245.000 Dollars by two Cars for 85.000 DOllars=170.000 Dollars you win 245.000-170.000 Dollars 75.000 DOllars you win ?: you have to look not to expensive the cars and the Opel Insignia you can do it for as project 44.000 Dollars to look you can win costomers or not and all Cars : are the Cars expensive the Customers going to other Companies where they can get cheaper Cars: and ask the Customers for their wishes what do they want to give out for a Car do it right: the three projects are for my wife she will be: and look at the Hummer H2 Wheels there are to much hole to the Metalic and Gold around the holes inside and outside too do it right there are only one life: Truck Hummer H2 Sports: as Energy back Porsche: do what you like but do it right: GMC must to away from the Cars that look terrible: General: project: and all Cars new Cars without all discribings and numbers: and a Handy in the Cars and 13 touch screen Pens to write 39 TOuch Screen Pens: that is for you GMC i am here there is so much to do: 65 % or 35 Billon DOllars + 45 % and and and you got it all what to do i am here so much to do in the USA ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.21.2 ( talk) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Viewer (
talk •
contribs)
User:Tokyogirl79 wordlessly reverted an edit by User:Kareem179 regarding the pension transfer. Even cases of clear vandalism deserve at least an edit note. After looking at the edit, I would say that it might not have been in the totally proper place (I would have put it under Chapter11,) and that the sources could be better (I found many, WSJ, Fortune, the wire services.) However, a $29 billion transaction definitely is notable. The uncovered pension fund was at the heart of the bankruptcy matter, and it should warrant a bit more reflection. I suggest that the editors restore, improve, and amplify the edit a bit. BsBsBs ( talk) 07:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewer ( talk • contribs)
The following assertion is made in the "History" section:
"Along the way, a failure to obtain government loans caused GM to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2009, following the recession of 2008, 2009."
I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, but certainly there were far more reasons for GM's Chapter 11 in 2009 than just failure to obtain Government loans. This simply can't be true. GM needed the loans because it did not have enough cash from operations or adequate capital to sustain itself. So, it wasn't the lack of loans that led to the bankruptcy; it was the performance of the company. This section should be revised with verified information related to the following:
1) Management performance 2) Sales of new vehicles relative to the marketplace 3) Political issues (regulations/lack thereof) 4) Union / labor issues 5) Tax issues 6) International trade / performance
This is my own editorializing, but usually a company's poor performance is due to management performance. Referring to scholarly work on the performance of GM management pre and post bankruptcy would probably be valuable (if such scholarly work exists).
BeatArmy89 ( talk) 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)BeatArmy89 May 24, 2013
Any plans to include this in the article? Based on the level of media coverage received and the high profile congressional and NHSTA investigations this would seem warranted. 108.172.112.92 ( talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Cleaned-up the intro a bit:
Some information in the last third should go below. BsBsBs ( talk) 15:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone clarify the information in the infobox? It is illogical for a company that was founded in 1908 to have a predecessor that existed from 1908 to 2009. Nyth83 ( talk) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! This account (GMCommunications) is run by General Motors Communication staff and one of GM’s agencies, FleishmanHillard. Our goal with this account is to assist the community with information and any questions that you may have about GM and provide links to primary and third-party sources that may help answer those questions here or at the Reference Desk.
In the spirit of full transparency, we posted this message to the Talk page as a standalone post to ensure it is seen by as many users as possible.
We will be tagging anything we post on this Talk page with an abbreviated disclaimer announcing the account’s GM and agency affiliation. We will not be making any direct edits to any Wikipedia page through this or any other account and look forward to discussing any proposed edits with the community.
We hope to become a resource for information and look forward to collaborating with the community.
GMcommunications ( talk) 15:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Caroline, GM Community Manager, August 26, 2014
Noticed this page had employment figures from 2012. Updated employment figures for the year 2014 can be found here: http://www.gm.com/company/aboutGM/our_company.html. The new number is 212,000.
PLEASE NOTE: This account is managed by GM and their agency, FleishmanHillard.
GMcommunications ( talk) 18:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Caroline, GM Community Manager
Thank you again for adding in the updates for the 2014 employee figures. After additional observation, we noticed some of our Corporate Officers under the Corporate Governance section are out of date. Below I have include some proposed content to update this section with the correct Officers.
In addition, we also noticed that company president Dan Ammann ( http://www.gm.com/company/corporate-officers/daniel-ammann) does not have his own page and when searched on Google, his photo is associated with a Swiss journalist with the same name. Do you have any suggestions or best practices on how to start a discussion about creating his own page?
Proposed Content [Under Corporate Governance section]
The following names and/or titles could be updated as:
UPDATE: Dr. Karl-Thomas Neuman's title to - GM Executive Vice President and President, GM Europe
REPLACE: Timothy E. Lee with Stefan Jacoby - Executive Vice President Consolidated International Operations
REPLACE: Melissa Howell with John J. Quattrone - Senior Vice President, GM Global Human Resources
REPLACE: Selim Bingol with Tony Cervone - Senior Vice President, Global Communications
Source: http://www.gm.com/company/corporate-officers Pete at GM ( talk) 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
GM in China In the “Asia” section of the page, I noticed the number of GM vehicles sold in China is not current and references figures from 2010. Included below are updated numbers for 2014 from GM and third-party sources below. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2015/01/14/gm-record-sales-chevy-sales-fall/21767247/ http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/Jan/0114-gm-2014-global-sales.html 198.208.159.19 ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Proposed Content [under “Asia” subsection of “World Presence” section] “Deliveries in China rose 12 percent to a record 3,539,972 in 2014 and the company’s estimated market share increased 0.6 percentage points to 14.8 percent.” 198.208.159.19 ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a article for a United States based car manufacturer so I think it should use American English, not British English. Doorknob747 ( talk) 15:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Hi all! Citation 29 leads to a different website than the one listed and citation 30 leads to a 404 page. Where are these supposed to actually go? Tiptop9227 ( talk) 11:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. I recommend two or five millennia before revisiting this; the end.</sarcasm> ( non-admin closure) George Ho ( talk) 01:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
General Motors → GM – Common Name 65.175.243.206 ( talk) 10:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The history section barely discusses the first 100 years (pre-2008) of this most illustrious auto manufacturer--it just glosses over the first hundred years in a couple of brief paragraphs. What a shame! The history section needs to be greatly expanded (I mean exponentially expanded). It could cover all of the great periods (i.e. 1908-2007) and create a sub-section for each: the early years, WWII and the roaring 20s, the 30s and early 40s (depression and WWII), postwar heyday (late 40s, 50's, 60s, early 70s), then years (energy crisis, downsizing, decline in popularity 1977-2007), etc. The article could include pictures of famous models from the various eras, including discontinued marques such as Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn, (maybe even mention Beaumont, the Canadian Marque), etc. We could mention famous engineers and designers such as Zora Duntov, Harley Earl, and Bill Mitchell. One gets little sense of GM's incredible history and glory days. Let's get dust off our automotive history books, folks, and gather sources to build this section up to what it should be! Garagepunk66 ( talk) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad that there is a separate article for the history. I just wish a little more was said here--it is so essential to our understanding of GM. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete at GM ( talk) 15:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the history section is very poor. While the ignition recall might be noteworthy, it shouldn't get more words than say Durant's board room coup in 1916. Really the ignition section should perhaps be moved to the controversy section rather than in one of the earliest sections. However, if this is a summary of the History of General Motors article then I would say keep the history really high level and the controversial stuff should simply not be in the history section. Springee ( talk) 21:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
References
This article seems like it may have haphazardly evolved over the years as people wanted to add new bits and pieces to the entry. It seems like the article is too focused on recent issues to be a good general article on the company. I suspect people have wanted to make sure recent controversies are included and thus they have been added front and center with out consideration for the overall flow and quality of the whole article. In addition to the controversy section being a mess, why does the small car section even exist? Why not a truck section or a section talking about the large number of non-personal auto businesses GM has been involved in over the years? I would propose restructuring much of the article. I think all of the controversial material (perhaps including the politics surrounding the 2010 bankruptcy) should be in one section. However, if others have ideas on that I'm very open to discussion there. I think the history section should be chronological and give approximately equal weight to each decade unless there is a notable exception. Are there other auto company articles that people might suggest as a good template for the layout of this article? Springee ( talk) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The controversy section seems to just dive into one particular issue (Natter) and then bounce into other issues in a haphazard way. I would suggest that controversies be listed in historical order and each as a subheading. For lack of a better place to put it I would also suggest we move the ignition topic and the lawsuit, both mentioned in the into history section, to the controversy section. Anyone oppose? Springee ( talk) 21:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, I agree that the bankruptcy is a very notable event in the company's history. My edit didn't actually remove it from the history section but instead linked to the specific topic page. My concern is WP:UNDUE. Certainly the bankruptcy is one of the biggest events in GM history. However, there are 100 years of that history and it seemed the short history section was 50% about the bankruptcy. Also some of the statements were possibly added with a WP:NPOV. Would you be willing to help me edit that section? Springee ( talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I reduced the length of the bankruptcy section by removing the second paragraph. It seemed like it could be a NPOV section but more importantly since there is a branch article on the subject the bankruptcy should probably be kept to just a single paragraph. Again, I'm not certain this is the best way to cover the material but I think it is better than what we had. Springee ( talk) 21:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
: Petrarchan47 Sorry, I think my above ping may not have gone through. Anyway, I think we have too much WP:WEIGHT in the bankruptcy section. Remember this is a company that has been around for 100 years. The bankruptcy was clearly a very important event but in the article it is 1/2 of the company's history. That is a weight issue. Remember there is a primary article on both the overall history and the bankruptcy so it's not like the information removed doesn't exist in a linked article. Please reply to this message. Springee ( talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
: Petrarchan47 , I think the "tax payer's money" phrase needs to go as it is a weasel word (well phrase, WP:WEASEL). "Government backed" or "government funded" are better phrases. Do you have a suggestion for changing that language? Springee ( talk) 01:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
: Petrarchan47 , sorry to ping you twice. I wanted to let you know I posted a question about the "taxpayer's money" phrasing on the
WP:NPOV notice board. I was curious what phrasing people might suggest.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Suggestions_for_phrasing
Springee (
talk)
01:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a table showing the number of vehicles sold in each of several countries with the US first and China second. But I think there should also be a table showing the number of vehicles manufactured in each country and the countries should be ranked. This might also be done by brand (Buick, Chevy, GMC, and Cadillac) for each country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:107:2C01:983:2287:3AB0:873A ( talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)