Talk:General Motors/Archive 1

GM imminent demise
It has been floated by CNBC and Bloomberg i think on June 27, 2008 that Ford, GM and Chrysler will collapse in the next 18 months and probably only Ford will survive. There are a lot of sites that mentioned this, just type it in google.com. I think its financial health is a very important key information to show users of the GM information a clear picture where it is financially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.58 (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, guys.... care to provide reliable sources for your speculation? Chaparral2J (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Electric Vehicles
It does seem as if some of GM's PR agents were writing some of this page. GM's EV1 was a significant car, but it wasn't the only production electric car from a major car company (and the sentence about this is awful). Ford sold the Ranger EV, Chrysler had the Dodge Caravan EPIC, Fiat offered the Cinquecento electric, PSA offered the Peugeot 106 electric, and the article is TRYING to describe the EV1 as a dedicated electric vehicle, Nissan offered the Altra EV and the Hypermini...both designed from the ground up as electrics.

Would anyone be offened if I removed said line from the article?


 * I totally agree. In Europe a significant number of solely electical vehicle was offered by major OEM.

GM also saves kittens from trees
holy ******, who wrote this tripe? GM cares about fuel efficiency? What a f***ing joke. this article is awful.

This is not the kind of language you would want to see in an encyclopedia. If you wish to dispute something within the article, please let us know by using appropriate language. Thanks!

And since this is an encyclopedia, you should also try to keep to facts instead of jumping all over articles, bashing them with your own opinions. Your claim that GM doesn't care about fuel efficiency seems somewhat flawed to me though, as the auto market increasingly demands it.

GM is no different than other successful corporations. They must manufacture what people want to purchase. Customers are buying large vehicles, SUVs and trucks. People are not or are only temperarily interest in fuel economy. It is not fair to blame a corporation for giving people what they want.
 * in a strange side note, there are some kittens living in the second floor of the gm assembly plant in arlington texas. weird, eh? :þ clsours  ¡Æ! 07:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are some mice living in the GM assembly plant in Moraine, Ohio. Maybe they can move in with you as this plant closes!!! Even weirder.

General Motors has recently announced they plan to be the world leader in fuel economy by 2010.

I absolutely agree that this article reads as if it were written by GM spin doctors. It is laughable at best. --JJ 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuity error
It says that the chinese currnecy is pegged to the dollar, still. Elfuegocaliente 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Claims and Lawsuits
California has filed lawsuits against six car companies, including GM, for gas emissions leading to global warming. I think this should be added soon if it proves to pan out in the next few days.Jeremyburkhart 05:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy I don't see how that lawsuit will hold up in court. In order for GM or any other auto company to be sued there would have to be overwhelming evidence that their vehicles were causing a purposeful detriment to the enviroment beyond what could be considered normal. Also the people who filed the lawsuit left out coal burning powerplants which pollute in much higher volumes than do passenger cars.91z4me 11:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't even think of that. I also noticed that the other car companies' pages don't have any mention of the lawsuit, so it probably wouldn't make sense to put it here either. Jeremyburkhart 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversey
General Motors Corporation has been accused by a variety of consumer advocates, activists, commentators, journalists, and documentary makers of deliberately sabotaging their companies' zero emmision electric vehicle efforts through several methods: failing to market, failing to produce appropriate vehicles, failing to satisfy demand, and using lease-only programs with prohibitions against end of lease purchase. By these actions they have managed to terminate their electric vehicle development and marketing programs despite operators' offers of purchase and assumption of maintenance liabilities.

The process of obtaining GM's first electric vehicle the EV1 was difficult. The vehicle could not be purchased outright. Instead, General Motors offered a closed-end lease for three years, with no renewal or residual purchase options. The EV1 was only available from specialist Saturn dealerships, and only in California.

Before reviewing leasing options, a potential lessee would be taken through a 'pre-qualification' process in order to learn how the EV1 was different from other vehicles. Next came a waiting list with no scheduled delivery date.

A documentary about the demise of the EV1 and other electric vehicles entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? debuted on June 30, 2006. Several weeks before the debut of the movie, the Smithsonian Institution announced that its EV1 display was being permanently removed and the EV1 car put into storage. GM is a major financial contributor to the museum, and both parties denied that this fact contributed to the removal of the display.

According to the interview with Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner in the June 2006 issue of Motor Trend magazine, the cancellation of the EV1 proggram has been one of the worst decision he has ever made.


 * First of all, please make sure to sign your discussions so we know who is speaking. Secondly, I want to remove your added content for a complete lack of citation... The movie you referenced unfortunately pulled a lot of hype and controversy that frankly didn't exist until the editors made it up. I encourage you to read the blogged response by a GM Editor directly to the film found at http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html#EV1
 * This link is 404 also Tangurena 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, please be sure to include some quotes from the source I mentioned to you, the section you posted without sources throws off our NPOV we're striving for in this article. --Lucavious 17:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * California wanted direct electrical connections for electric vehicles. The EV1 used a paddle, which inductively conducted the charge, as opposed to a mechanical connection like your wall outlet. GM felt that the direct connections were unsafe in non-desert conditions, like every other state other than the southwest. Direct connectors lose less energy, but aren't as safe in the rain. There are waterproof connectors available, but most are rated for a small number of insertion/removal cycles, some of the waterproof connectors in engine compartments and underside of cars are rated for 10 cycles: disconnect and reconnect them more, and they should be replaced. Tangurena 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this: http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/12/mark_phelan_electric_car_kille.html the article linked in this section? The other links for the FastLane blog and for citation 11 are now 404. Tangurena 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So many unbalanced views...
"Cadillac is number one seller of vehicles over $40,000, proving that GM has the vehicles that real luxury consumers want." So... that's a neutral sentence of encyclopedia-quality these days? Bobbo008 02:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does nearly the whole article read like it was written by a UAW-card-carrying GM employee? Except for the "Controversy" bit, which looks, as another commenter has stated, like an advertisement for the movie about electric vehicles. I came to this article looking for a broader POV than what I found -- for example, has any proper research been conducted into why Honda and Toyota sedans outsell GM ones in GM's home market, the US? Anonymous 15:19, 14 August 2006 (EDT)
 * ROFL!!!! no no no. UAW would never write anything like this page. you guys are just too funny. #1 The word UAW does not appear before the word GM, which it would if this were written by UAW. :þ clsours  ¡Æ! 07:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This page is an embarassment, honestly. I actually went ahead and researched all the POV stuff, and most of it is severely exaggerated.  Frankly, this page needs to be deleted and remade.  You can see all the mistakes I found here:

http://www.ordisante.com/2006/09/08/8-things-wrong-with-gm-article-at-wikipedia-2.html

Would anyone scream bloody murder if many of the paragraphs were removed from the mid to lower portions? Why are we bragging about GM's accomplishments over Saturn in quality or the inflation of ratings by their competitors? Lucavious 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone has taken care of the GM horn tooting, is there a need for the neutral tag stuck on the article at this point? I am going to go ahead and remove it as there doesn't appear to be anymore traces of imbalance, though anyone who disgrees can add it again easily enough.Lucavious 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The infobox says GM was founded in 1908, but the text says 1902 -- anybody know which is correct? Bananafish 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1908. Here's the quote from GM's heritage page (http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/history/gmhis1900.html):
 * "Under Billy Durant's leadership, General Motors Company is organized in 1908 (Sept 16), incorporating the Buick Motor Company."
 * I didn't know that Oldsmobile joined GM second. My mom thinks that they were independent up until the 60s and THEN GM basically bought and killed them.
 * --Plasmax000 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't GM also own Holden and Opel? And perhaps we could flesh out the history more... it sounds kinda biased....

Paragraph 3 discusses an urban legend based on Bradford Snell's work about tram lines but then further paragraph report as truth GM WWII involvement also based on work by the same Bradford Snell. What gives? Rmhermen 15:22 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This seems a little non-NPOV about the WWII involvement. Implied is that GM's American management willfully supported the Nazi regime AFTER the start of hostilities, which I believe not to be the case. Accounts I've read squarely put the German government in control of German GM subsidiaries during the war years. Anyone got cites pro/con? --Morven 21:14, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wasn't Hughes spun off as an independent company a few years ago?
Wasn't Hughes spun off as an independent company a few years ago? Mkweise 06:42, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, it was Electronic Data Systems Corporation that became an independent company in 1996. Hughes Aircaft was sold to Raytheon in 1997. Hughes Space & Communications Company was sold to Boeing in 2000. Hughes Electronics' Direct TV and Hughes Network Systems was sold to News Corporation in 2003.

I do have issues with that paragraph the anon removed, though -- I don't like 'alleged' in an article without a source for the allegation. &mdash;Morven 10:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removal / reinsertion of controversial topics
I support the reversion of the anon's complete removal of these topics, but I do believe that these sections are POV, lack any cites, and should be done better.

For the first paragraph (streetcar conspiracy) we should mention only SOME believe it; I'll edit the article to say so.

For the second, I note the paragraph contains many words on GM's guilt and then one final line saying that GM disclaims responsibility because the factories were seized during the war. That's not really balanced. &mdash;Morven 20:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * since when have conspiracy theories been encylopediac in relating to the main entry? Are we going to start having area 51 be and rosewell be in the cia/fbi/us government sections? if you want to talk about conspiracy theroies they need to be on a different page. Or give reasons why this isn't a conspiracy theory(and even if it is on a conspiracy theory page, those edits need to be made to be more npov, they make it seem like america was helping both sides when we were at war, which is entirly untrue.


 * To deny that there such conspiracy theories are commonly believed by many is unencyclopedic. If you feel the statements contain factual errors, then correct them. If you feel the phrasing is unfairly biased, then revise the material. But wholessale deletion is not acceptable. Please see Neutral point of view For the record, I quite agree that this section very much needs attention, but I very much disagree with wholesale deletion simply because you don't like it. older &ne; wiser 15:58, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * yes but they don't belong in the main article about that comany. taking up 1/2th of the history, Unless that company for some reason is known only for that conspiracy theory or that comes to mind when people think of them, which really isn't the case for General motors. I notice that under moon landing, the fact that it never happened(which a large section of people belive) has been moved to a sepeate section because the general consenus there was that conspiracy theories don't belong in the main article


 * I'd have no problem with addressing this conspiracy theory stuff in separate articles and linking to it in the See Also section. older &ne; wiser 16:14, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay good stuff that's fine... if you do that I'll clean up the dislogic a bit(it was trying to make you belive that general motors was helping during ww2, which just wasn't the case at all).


 * Bkonrad is right, am happy with that solution but will revert any anonymous user's change if not defended in detail on this page. Lukewilson 23:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the following paragraph wich originally read:
 * "GM has extensively touted its research and prototype development of hydrogen powered vehicles, to be produced at some unspecified future time and using a support infrastructure yet to be built. The economic feasibility of the technically challenging hydrogen car, and the low-cost production of hydrogen to fuel it. is controversial, particularly when compared to the hybrid vehicles already produced by competitors."

And changed it to:
 * "GM has prided its research and prototype development of hydrogen powered vehicles, to be produced in early 2010, using a support infrastructure still in a prototype state. The economic feasibility of the technically challenging hydrogen car, and the low-cost production of hydrogen to fuel it, has also been discussed by other automobile manufacturers such as Ford and Chrysler."
 * The original paragraph seemed to have an odd point of view, plus the second sentence was fragment. Also, most of the claims have since changed.  For instance, GM has already sold hydrogen vehicles to the US military.  And a consumer date has been made for 2010 vehicle models (which would be released in late 2009 or early 2010).
 * Sources: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060920/AUTO02/609200354/1148/AUTO01 Jeremyburkhart 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Financial challenges for GM: Why is this being deleted?
It's no secret that GM has financial challenges ahead, there was a reasonable section with reliable sources that anonymous users have deleted a few times. It is not obvious why. Perhaps there could be some explanation from the anonymous users... MunchieRonnie 16:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know and don't really much care, but I have protected this page due to excessive reversion activity. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 19:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The financial information on GM should stay unless there's a good reason. NihonGo 21:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * why are you posting agreeing with yourself? that's kinda strange anonymous


 * Does anyone believe the financial info on GM should be deleted?

I think Keep. Reithy 07:58, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ha, funny there is a discussion about absence of the company's financial problems. It seem the person editing it out is not alone. Here is an article about the company withdrawing advertisement from a paper, apparently because the paper featured a critical article. The thing is, editing it out is pointless. The company is heading into a very troubled time if oil continue selling at the current price and the problem will become so had to cover up. I feel for those affected, but then again, these are the same companies that were previously lobbing against law that discouraged gas guzzlers. Go lobby the oil market now GM


 * Oddly enough, oil prices are dropping more than their normal for the time of the year. GM's stocks have made a huge comeback since late summer.Jeremyburkhart 05:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Chinese government's extensive purchase of U.S. government debt in the form of bonds." This is an overexageration. The Chinese do NOT own a significant part of the US dept. It's large but by no means unusual or worth mentioning. Here is a chart to prove it. here
 * they are the 4th largest holder, 2nd largest foreign holder, also their share is continually increasing, not fluctuating. that is significant, especially when juxtaposed with the trade imbalance and the dynamics of Chinese industry :þ clsours  ¡Æ! 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, probably because some PR flacks have discovered wikipedia is a 'liability' and pay some newly minted college PR flunkie to come here and erase anything 'controversial', hiding behind wikipedias 'NPV'. so neutral you might as well not have an article in the first place.

Mis-quote of Wilson
Off the topic that others have been speaking about, I wonder why people keep making errors about Pres. Wilson's comments before the congressional committee. He actually said "What is good for the country is good for General Motors and what is good for General Motors is good for the country". This seems both a harmless and not very important statement; it is obviously a simple statement of fact. It does not make GM, and Wilson, look like Military Industrial Complex monsters, which the use of only the second half of his statement might seem to imply. This twisting of meaning of the quote, derived by omotting its first half, is a simple propaganda trick, and the Left has been beating Capitalism with it since it was first made. And it shows up even here, in this site. "Give us this day and our daily illusion"--it doesn't take much to keep people happy.


 * 'what is good for corporation xyz is good for the country' is not a simple statement of fact, nor is it obvious. there are hundreds of examples through history in which what is considered 'good' by some people for a corporation are not considered 'good' by many people for a country as a whole. and who does the deciding for whoom is very important. it goes back to the very simple principle of 'special interests' controlling the government, which has been talked about for centuries before there was a 'left', 'right' or anything called communism. that is why we have a democratic system of government, not a corporateocratic or money-o-cratic system of government. the people as a whole decide what is good for the country, not any small group that has gained power for whatever reason.


 * So what part of all that justifies mis-quotation? What Wilson said was "What is good for the country is good for General Motors and vice versa." He actually said "vice versa," so the phrase usually quoted as if it came out of his mouth didn't, although it was implied. And the emphasis of his original statement was quite the opposite of what it has often been made out to be. The emphasis was that, as a public official, he would start with the good for the country, and simply expect that this would work out well for GM as well. He may have been wrong about that, but if so the wrongness is of a conventionally liberal, harmony-of-long-term-interests sort. If you disagree with somebody, you ought to be especially scrupulous about quoting them accurately. Otherwise you're just disagreeing with a boogyman of your own creation. --Christofurio 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

US government subsidizing import?
Does anyone know whether this is true? "Government has also contributed to the industry's structural problems. By one estimate, state governments subsidize foreign transplants such as BMW and Honda plants to the tune of $1,000 per car. And state franchise laws make it prohibitively expensive to rationalize dealer networks and nameplates. Worst of all are clean-air rules that essentially require companies to produce and sell low-pollution passenger cars at a loss, just to offset the environmental damage done by all their trucks and SUVs." I really don't understand how US government can be able to subsidize foreign import when US car manufactures have such a powerful lobby.

Oldsmobile
I know Oldsmobile is now dead and gone, but shouldn't it get a mention at least? -james_anatidae 06:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's listed on the world's largest automaker as being defunct, but I think it's worthy of being listed here too.Jeremyburkhart 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some insightful writing about why GM got in the health quigmire
Ha, it looks like GM had been paying lightly as employees seemed to have preffered a health security more than a fat monthly cheque. The sad thing is they may end up loosing on health care, even though they took a lean monthly cheque. 

I'm disgusted at the Canada comment in this article: "A VEILED EXCUSE", that seems a little biased.

GM doesn't produce hybrids?
I belive this line from the article is inaccurate, but I'm not 100%:

"Toyota and Honda have also introduced gasoline/electric or diesel/electric hybrid vehicles into their product mix whereas, as of October of 2005, General Motors has not."

This page lists a Chevy and a GMC truck that are hybrids: http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/vehicles/pickup/hybrid/

I'm not sure when these hybrid truck lines came out, but I thought it was before Oct. 2005. Am I wrong about this?
 * The Silverado Hybrid and the Sierra Hybrid were introduced before October 2005, but they were only sold to select markets before they went nationwide. --ApolloBoy 18:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget that GM made the first hybrid bus, too.
 * Porshe was the first to experiment with hybrid technology, followed by GM who was first to build on the concept, then Toyota, followed by Honda.Jeremyburkhart 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The large suv plants are gearing up to produce hybrids beginning in late 2007 :þ clsours  ¡Æ! 07:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Many GM vehicles marketed as hybrids are actually mild hybrids (oversized starter motors so they can kick on and off while in motion) rather than true hybrids such as those from Honda and Toyota. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Bottom section
What's with the section that ends with "By John Gleeson" at the bottom of the article? It seems to have been pasted there completely out of context. --Closeapple 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if this is the John Gleeson that works at the Oshawa Truck Assmembly Plant ...

We are currently in the process of running 'test' hybrid vehicles at Oshawa that run on Ethanol.

bespoke ???
I noticed that "bespoke" is used twice in this article. This word is incredibly uncommon in the US. I looked up the word on m-w.com, and it seems "custom" or "custom-made" might be more easily understood by the typical US reader, though I'm not 100% sure these words capture the same meaning the author is trying to convey. Thoughts?
 * I fixed it. it's a British term, used for custom tailored suits. Rjensen 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of pension/ health care problems?
Does anyone know a clear, NPOV explanation of GM's pension/ health care problems that we can incorporate into the article? Someone gave a link above which kind of skims over it, but seems to over simplify. Did workers really demand, and GM really agree to, paying unfunded benefits that it seriously hoped would come out of future earnings? MrVoluntarist 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Due to its highly compensated workforce GM has the highest health care and labor costs in the industry, and some analysts have criticized the company for this."

This seems to be a POV and at least requires a citation (perhaps several), doesn't it? 71.131.209.192 23:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * POV? It doesn't make much sense to bgein with, or at least is poorly phrased.  It should't be hard to find a source.  But as of now I have a hard time even knowing what to add for reasons above.  Every criticism I've read makes it sound like he unions made stupid demands.  Not excessive demands; rather, demands which if satisfied would have made them worse off. MrVoluntarist 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this gets into complex discussions of how our economy runs and how people pay for mistakes. I feel that almost all discussions have a POV slanted toward the company, for instance, any discussion that uses words like "excessive" to discuss employee pay is slanted, since this pay was granted by the company. You can weasel all you want about the union holding the company hostage, but in the end you executives are paid big bucks to look after the company.

One also almost never hears how the failure of GM management - the colossal, decades long failure, evidenced by their slide in market share - never gets blamed. why is this ?

Commentary not suitable for article
Came across this Jeremy Clarkson commentary. Too sarcastic/opinionated for the article, but funny nontheless. Clarkson is lamenting the effect GM has had on its Vauxhall subsidiary:
 * "...Vauxhall’s a part of General Motors which, so far as I can tell... seems to concentrate mainly on pensions and healthcare and for as long as I can remember has seen the car making side of the business as an expensive loss-making nuisance. This explains the [old] Vectra. They gave it some seats, a pair of windscreen wipers and a roof, and, just before the morning coffee break, with a sigh of relief, went back to their Medicare and pension plans." --Mark83 13:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Live Green Go Yellow
Shouldn't this article mention how gm is supporting Ethanol with it's Live Green go Yellow campaign? Mathiastck 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but also note that this is mainly a way for GM to gain CAFE mileage credits at minimal cost, resulting in greater fuel consumption within the fleet - and that is gasoline, owing to the unavailablity of E85 at the pump. Also, E85 will be a non-starter without extensive subsidies and/or cost reduction, owing to 20 to 25 percent lower enegery content by volume and consequent poorer milage. Note that imported ethanol faces a 100 percent tariff to protect ADM and other maize-based domestic US ethanol producers.

Current Event Boilerplate Text?
personally I would describe "General Motors" as a current event. Yes it changes rapidly, but i dont see the relevance of it changing "as the event progresses"

this doesnt quite make sense

GM's variable valve timing system VVT would operate throughout the entire RPM range provide superior performance. Japanese automakers reacted by adding i for intelligence, to do what GM's system had already been doing

Neutrality
Did anyone read this article. It smells of GM friendly bias. Compare this article to ones on other automakers like Toyota, Ford, or Honda.

For example, take a look at the hybrid section.

"GM delivered the first commercial hybrid vehicle and was early innovator in hybrid vehicle development, building Diesel-electric trains since the 1930s and buses since the 1990s (but without stored energy recovery)."

That sentence makes it sound like GM delivered the first commercial passenger car. Also, I'm not exactly sure what a Disel-electric train without stored energy recovery is supposed to say about hybrid.

The article has also had several questionable revisions, such as the removal of Gm's financial troubles. The marketting section is especially suspect, considering how it singles out pro GM articles.

The article also states "Ford was moralistically opposed to credit." while Ford did have a line of credit in that time period.


 * I believe they mean dynamic brakes when they say no energy recovery. It isn't particularly relevent, I don't think, although the technology is similar to what hybrids use.  TastyCakes 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Marketing (GM flack edits?)
Marketing problems section was gutted and is now Marketing trends, removing historical quality problems and now it is looking like a corporate puff piece due to IP edits. Looks like GM flack has been here. - Leonard G. 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the article being vandalized?
The bias seems pretty severe to me. For example, the marketing section seems to be almost an advertisment for GM, citing statistics and polls that trumpet GM's quality, while disparaging competitors by name.

I agree, some of this section is ridiculous, here's why:

Removed:

"Foreign automakers and their media allies regrouped, and the marketing competition resumed. Foreign automakers tried a different marketing tactic focusing on technology. Once again, foreign automakers were just trying to create perception. Honda valve systems even lacked hydraulic lifters, and Japanese automakers were mostly using rubber timing belts. In the 1980s, Japanese automakers still had a long way to go."


 * Why does Honda need to be singled out as a competitor to GM? Many Honda valve systems lack hydraulic lash adjusters because they can be problematic in overhead cam engines. Also many Honda engines generally only need to have the valves adjusted once throughout the operating life of the engine, the reduced complexity and cost is pretty well justified. Belt driven cams have been used or are currently used by just about every major auto manufacturer. American manufacturers, including GM did not begin to widely use overhead cam engines until the 1990s and when they did begin to adopt the overhead cam configuration many of them were also driven by belts. The advantages timing belts have made them popular choice. Belts are quieter in their operation, less expensive and are mechanically more efficient than chains, the draw back being that they require routine maintenance that can often be difficult to perform. IJB TA 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"In 1989, Acura began showing the NSX, which had a variable valve timing system to create the perception that Japan had technology and 'tolerances'. However, in September of 1975, GM had already patented the first Smart Value, the progenitor of today's many versions of variable valve timing."


 * Again, why is Honda alone important to GM's marketing strategy? The variable valve timing systems GM had been researching the 1970s were never produced because of problems encountered during development. They did not inspire any future variable valve timing devices. IJB TA 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"GM's variable valve timing system VVT would operate throughout the entire RPM range providing superior performance. Japanese automakers reacted by adding i for intelligence, in a band aid approach to lift the valves to do what GM's more advanced cam timing system had already been doing.  On efficiency, the Japanese marketing failed again, GM V-6 and V-8 models lead in their respective class for fuel economy."


 * Inaccurate information.

Controversy section
The stuff about the electric car doesn't seem notable enough to have such a big section, and it seems more like a plug for the "who killed the electric car" book than anything. Of course I may be biased - I have a hard time swallowing the claim that GM didn't want its electric car program to work in order to support oil companies. How about a little dose of reality - GM doesn't care if oil companies like them. I think they just decided electric cars were a dead end and instead focussed on fuel cells and (later) hybrids. All the rest of this issue smells of hugely POV speculation and conspiracy theory. TastyCakes 22:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed. It looks to me like someone saw the movie and felt like they needed to go on a crusade to promote electric vehicles... Another reality check: They cost A LOT of money (The price of small house). 50,000 people signed up to lease one but as little as 50 ever bothered to get it when the chance arose. --Lucavious 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
This is a perfect example of GM at work - the whole article stinks of a GM advertising plot to hijack this article to praise themselves.
 * You drop in, don't cite any reasons, don't even SIGN your discussion post and mark the article imbalanced? No. --Lucavious 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not a hijack, but this article does seem inbalanced to me.

I think there is strong evidence of neutrality issues. The "labor Cost" quote in section 9.1 implies UAW employees earned $81.18/hour in 2006, and nearly $80/hr. now. These numbers are absurd and ridiculous. The "reference" provided for the numbers is an op/ed piece that is union hostile. I am not a UAW wage analyst, but it is my understanding these outrageous numbers are the result of GM's creative math. They add in all the retiree benefits from their decades of downsizing and buyouts into the hourly UAW employee cost. This is creates the impression that UAW employees are grossly overpaid, compared to other auto workers, which is very unfair and very NPOV. There are multiple sites on the web showing true UAW labor for a US built car is around 9% of the true cost. I'm talking about the active labor cost, not retiree benefits. Toyota pays *active* non-UAW employees around $14-$18 an hour in the USA, and UAW employees around $32. Truth is, Toyota built their new, non-UAW plants in poor, rural areas of the USA where $14-$18 an hour is a decent wage. GM's plants are typically older, located in built-up areas where the wages and cost of living are far higher than rural areas. UAW *active* employees form less than 1/3 of GM's workforce. The way GM continually blames these assembly line workers for their executive/management's grotesque failures is an absurdity. This page is a GM propaganda piece.71.119.74.155 (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GM largest foreign automaker in China?
Not according to the wiki on VW group. Anyone care to check this? Just noticed this discrepancy.


 * Your comment (who are you, by the way?) landed up here just after I'd received my weekly copy of The Economist.  As it happens, The Economist this weekend runs a feature on 'Cars in Emerging Markets'.   They prudently avoid too many hard figures, which no doubt reflects the difficulty of extracting objective statistics on anything so politically contentious as car sale volumes.   But they do include the following:


 * "VW's share of the [Chinese] market has fallen from a peak of 56% to around 18% today, but its volume has tripled [reflecting, of course, the massive growth in the overall market size since the late 1990s]....and the firm still expects to sell more than a million cars in China this year - more than it sells in Germany
 * ....Like VW, [GM] has prospered by establishing its brands (especially Buick) and its distribution network [...ahead of most US/Europan/Japanese competitors...] and with a 10% share is now second only to VW."


 * That's on page 5 of the report. Lurking quietly two pages later, linked to the same article is a little chart indicating that Toyota, in third place, isn't too far behind GM, though the longer term trend appears to be that Chinese automakers are expected to grow their overall share of the Chinese market.   As you might expect.   For what it's worth, the feature is moderately positive about GM's performance in China.   And if you can persuade the market to buy them I guess selling 500,000 cars at 50,000 Bucks apiece probably does make more sense and more profit, than selling  1,000,000 cars at 20,000 Bucks each.   The problem is only that demand for those big cars tends to be more volatile, whichever market you're looking at.   Charles01 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?
There's not even a project page for the deletion request, nor has there been ANY discussion concerning the revising or removal of it. Therefore whoever put it up can do their homework before destroying the credibility of this article. --Lucavious 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese import limitations in Germany?
Although some commentators have claimed that European manufactures are somewhat disadvantaged by over-regulation, Germany places market share limits on Japanese imports, controlling Japan's ability to manipulate the market.

As a German, I hear this for the first time, and additionally, Toyota sales are soaring in Germany. The statement seems untrue to me and doesn't state a source. I placed behind the phrase, but if it turns out to be untrue, I'd like to delete it - comments? -- Philipp Krebs 01:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Market share
"In 1962 half the cars sold in America were made by GM. Now its market share is roughly 25 percent" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901385.html Shouldn't a decline like this get a mention?

Not like that, no. Its far too simplistic and ignores other factors, namely that in 1962 the playing field was dominated by the Big Three and a handful of failing indepedents (Studebaker, Packard, Nash) with virtually no imports to speak of. Fast-forward to today where nearly fifty different marques are sold in the United States and the rote number of competitors is far greater than it was in the past. Simply quoting that figure makes it seem like a failing of General Motors without the realization that market dynamics are what changed. No automaker can ever hope to achieve such total domination of the US market again. --24.96.69.81 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Electric Automobiles
The electric car controversy should not appear under GM's main page, it should be relegated to the page under the EV1 automobile. The fact that this controversy stems from a movie that has been in theaters for almost three months and is distributed by SONY has earned under $1.5 million dollars doesn't justify it being on GM's main page when in earned $192.604 Billion last year. Why isn't the controversy on Honda Motor Company or Toyota's main page, they were involved in this so called "conspiracy".

The fact of the failure of the electric car is that for ANY automaker to be succesful they must be able to sell to the average American. The average American 10 years ago only earned $30,000 a year and the lease price was $300 for a car that you could not drive long distance. Many Americans needed a vehicle that could drive long distances because discount airlines were not prevelant 10 years ago and flying was expensive. You must look at the economics of it to understand why the concept failed, to many editors don't understand economics and just see it as GM being a big bully.

This is merely anti-GM sentiment, if you don't want to buy a GM vehicle that is fine, there are plenty of other high caliber automakers that make great vehciles. But it is completely unfair to hold GM responsible for the failure of electric automobiles.


 * Well, that's your respectable opinion, but opinion nonetheless. The criticism section serves to counter perceived anti-GM bias by promoting pro-GM bias, and it uses a fairly specious argument to do so.  The financial success of documentaries have no bearing on the veracity of their claims.  Documentaries typically don't make a lot of money, but don't cost a lot to produce, but that is neither here nor there.  Whether or not public opinion supports the claim that GM purposefully set the EV1 up to fail, it has no bearing on the truth or falseness of the statement.


 * I don't particularly care whether GM "killed the electric car" or not. But, in an encyclopedia, we can't substitute poor logic and personal opinion for verifiable facts.  Take a look at the page for Who Killed the Electric Car?; it balances pro- and anti- arguments, and criticises the movie using more fact-based angles.  Cheers, Skinwalker 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "...this controversy stems from a movie..." Are you serious? The controversy stems from GM's decision to discontinue and destroy the EV1s. It's only the recent heightened interest in the controversy that stems from the movie. The electric cars did not fail. GM failed (whether intentionally or not) to make the EV1 profitable. And no one is claiming that GM is "responsible for the failure of electric automobiles" but rather that GM is responsible for the failure of their own electric vehicles. And what ever happened to signing comments? --→ $JJOlsen$  06:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

POV problems
A lot of the article, esp. the history, seems to read it like it was taken from the PR department. This is a notification that I will be making a lot of changes soon to remove what I believe to be POV violations and make the information more neutral. Current version as of this post is. I'm not going to put a POV tag on it yet because I don't think it's fair to do so until I have the time to document the problems on the talk page. MrVoluntarist 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please change away. I think a GM marketroid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H salesman has been hard at work here.  I excised some of the more egregious statements, but there are other POV bits that remain.  Cheers, Skinwalker 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes thus far
Here is the comparison of some changes I made:

Justification of changes: I mentioned the role of their historic pension underfunding in the pension crisis. The article blamed the pension crisis in part on rate hikes, but those would help the pension fund, though it is correct they would possibly hurt GM's ability to do business. I clarified that the GM hybrid advantages were based on their estimates and not independently confirmed. I removed the part about health care moving their business to Canada. That claim is so far only supported by people of one ideology, and such a person was the only source for the claim. It should only be re-included if both sides can be explained, as well as why foreign competitors don't prefer Canada for that reason. The article also mentioned exchange rates, and I clarified that this only applied to imports, and not competitors who manufactured in America. MrVoluntarist 09:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited the article
Minor Edit to the article concerning some bias:

One, the part about Germany restricting imports has had no citation for quite some time, and was removed. Two, in the same section of the article, the claim that foreign automakers "transplant" their workers into America create the illusion that the cars were "american made" is false and was deleted. It has no citation and in fact foreign Automakers do use American workers at their plants, who do not receive foreign health benefits. Also deleted was the statement that the fictional transplants were "less skilled" and lower paid that Union Workers. "Less Skilled" is an subjective statement and no citations were made to prove it anyway.

I revised the part about foreign workers and healthcare to say "Also, foreign automakers have health-care costs paid for by their respective governments." It then leads into the Canada portion of the section, and is now much less POV.

Oh uh, those edits were made by me, Scryer360. Dont have an signature lined up yet so....

Removed section
I removed a section that claimed GM cars of the 80's had better quality than imports of the era. I'm sorry, but go look on every other quality study of the time period and you'll see that GM is far, FAR behind Toyota, Honda and others in reliablity. The section that claimed one, ONE researcher claimed GM cars were better is non-conclusive considering 99% of studies in this field go against his results. If that section bears mentioning, then I think it's fair to include the ones that say GM was far behind in quality at that time.

Needs financial info
The article lacks basic financial info: Assets, liabilities, who owns the shares (and thus the company), how many shares are outstanding, etc. At least, there should be a link to this information.

I came to the article looking for a list of GM's largest shareholders.

Corporate Issues
This article reads like a promotional advertisement for General Motors, which is, of course, ridiculous. Particularly the "Corporate Issues" section is far too kind. I personally will remove that section if no one does anything to change it to a neutral point of view. Nicholasink 19:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Aren't GM at their third level bond issue? This article is out of touch with reality; it completely obscures the extent of GM's debt crisis. The way the article spells out every cent the company MAKES (eg, listing how many millions it pulls by selling out of this company and that company) but never compares this to how much the company LOSES (which is 10s of billions - hence the fact their bonds have been on the rampage) is totally biased. So sad that Wikipedia is a victim to this kind of spin even with such a major company.--DreamsReign 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

GM Builds Trains Too
I fee lit should be noted somewhere here that the electromotive devision of General Motors builds trains, in particular the highly successful [British Rail Class 66. User:Tom walker 21:55 GMT 1 October 2006

GM in China
I can't find a source for the figures at the moment, but I've read repeatedly over the years in publications such as "The Wall Street Journal" that Volkswagen, not GM, is the top foreign automaker in China.

I'd second that, I think there is a good source in the VW group article.

GM Being the Number One Automaker in the World
Wouldn't DaimlerChryler AG actually be the number 1 in the world since it makes 149.78 billion euros, which would make their revenue about 6 billion more than GMs? GMs revenue is only 192 billion, putting them behind the 198 billion that DaimlerChrysler gets because of Currency Conversion. Zodia 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No no, No.1 Automaker status determined by number of cars sold, not nessicarily profit made. GM sold more cars, even though it made much less money (for any number of reasons, take your pick). So you are correct, DaimlerChrysler pulled in a hell of a lot more money, but it still did not sell as many cars.

Think margins. *****

Technology leadership in the 1950s
I was under the impression that in the 1950s, GM was actually an innovative technology leader - can anyone supply some refs to back this up ? I was also under the impression tha the northstar V8 was actually a technology powerhouse (I am def NOT pro GM - just credit where it is due).


 * I do not have sources for you but 50 years ago yes, GM vehicles were on par if not a little more advanced than competitors, as they had stopped making flathead engines and started with half-circle combustion chambers, pushrods, later I think they are called "Pentroof" combustion chambers, and hydraulic lifters. All were, back then, huge tech advancements.

But you are wrong about the Northstar V8. When it first premiered, it was considered something special, but not now. The reason it was considered special was because GM had (finally) started making Dual-Overhead-Cam V8s, something Japan and Germany had done for years.

Today however, DOHC is nothing spectacular. In fact most foreign competitors engines are DOHC, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, they all use DOHC. Even Nissans big Titan pickup uses a DOHC design.

And DOHC is not even considered an achievement anymore: Bugatti's Veyron is technically quad-overhead-cam, and Ferrari and Lambo are using triple-overhead-cam designs in V8 and V10 engines.

Also, cylinder deactivation, something GM is just now touting as something new, has been standard on the Honda Civic for years. Just ask Honda or even better pry open one of those engines (the ones I did were a 99 and a 97 Civic, one an Si and one a DX I think)(the models of the car, not the engines themselves, I dont know Honda's engine names).

Signed by Scryer_360, who forgets how to use the sig creator thingy.

Cylinder deactivation was pioneered by General Motors in the 1980s in a variety of Cadillacs under the guise of a V8-6-4 engine. It failed because the technology simply wasn't there to facilitate seamless, reliable deactivation. Today, the technology is there and GM and Honda are leaders in it followed by Chrysler. Also, whoever is claiming the Honda Civic had cylinder deactivation is full of crap. A select number of J-block V6s in 2006 model year Pilots, Odysseys, and Accord Hybrids feature Variable Cylinder Management. A 4cyl with variable displacement technology would be woefully inefficient if not supplemented by another powerplant and would certainly not be fitted to a late-90s Civic DX, one of the cheapest cars available at the time. C'mon now. At least be plausible.

In regards to the Northstar engine, remember that it was originally marketed as the Northstar System that incorporated 4T80-E HydroMatic transmission, road-sensing suspension, Bosch 4-wheel ABS discs, and Magnasteer as well as the 32v Northstar V8. What made the Northstar truly unique was its limp-home mode that allowed it to drive in short hops for around 100 miles without coolant by using deactivated cylinder banks as air pumps.

Seriously, guys, all this info is even available right here on Wikipedia. --24.96.69.81 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Fuel Economy Leader?
This article, near a mentioning about GM trucks, claims the current fuel economy leader is Toyota.

This is wrong, Toyota is perceived as having good fuel economy but the fleet average for best fuel economy is Honda, do some math.

Scryer_360 03:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Crushed EV1's caption
bsd

This image had a tagging error, which caused the caption not to appear, and i corrected it. But it stated something I found dubious: "EV1s crushed by General Motors shortly after production". Any thoughts?--Benstown 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

General Motors/Nazi Regime
Much of this should be removed or made into another article. For one, far too much of the history section is taken up by it, and secondly, it presents a negative bias towards the company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.15.101 (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree, but lets discuss where the content is going, and how much is to remain, before deleting it. Flibirigit 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The physical size of this inclusion is only a small percentage of the overall article. It is fully referenced and refers to a period during which over 50 million people died. It is not an inconsequental reference or activity and remains an overlooked aspect of US corporate history (akin to IBM's involvment). This should not be swept under the carpet no matter how distasteful and, as it is factual and relevant, should be a part of the overall article.Northlight 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. This info belongs on this page. In fact, the history section is not detailed enough in my opinion and should be expanded. If it gets too long, it can be reorganizd with sub-sections. -- P199 13:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

--- I tried to edit the references because one of them about the Naziness of GM is actually available to link to: Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/36370067.html?dids=36370067:36370067&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+30%2C+1998&author=Michael+Dobbs&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.01&desc=Ford+and+GM+Scrutinized+for+Alleged+Nazi+Collaboration  but when clicking edit of the references it lost all references info in the edit textarea and I would have had to of started over. Is this a bug? Can someone add the link I gave above to the reference (I believe #2 in the list)?

The Nazi part is very biased against GM. It states that the German government took over day to day in 1939 (as the link I provided confirms) then a paragraph starts out "Nevertheless, while General Motors has claimed that its German operations were outside its control during World War II, this assertion appears to be contradicted by available evidence." That sentence is a contradiction. The only linkable reference to the post states GM lost control in 1939 so how can it just be a "claim" by GM that operations were out of their control during WWII? It was out of their control.

Interesting that 2 of the 3 paragraphs of the washington post article are harmful to GM and the one paragraph from the post article which is left out of wikipedia is the one which is less harmful to GM. E.G. "Both Ford and General Motors declined requests for access to their wartime archives. Ford spokesman John Spellich defended the company's decision to maintain business ties with Nazi Germany on the grounds that the U.S. government continued to have diplomatic relations with Berlin up until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. GM spokesman John F. Mueller said that General Motors lost day-to-day control over its German plants in September 1939 and "did not assist the Nazis in any way during World War II.""

Might as well throw that one in there since all other info of the washington post article seems to be in the wiki.

It is just NOT true that Germany would not have been able to invade Poland without the help of GM. It is true that GM supplied the Wehrmacht with trucks which were essential for a successful invasion. But these trucks were all Opel-models, a former German company which GM took over after the big depression, just ten years before. Further the Wehrmacht had several other opportunities where they could get these trucks from. I demand that this part of the article will be removed!

What about the Poletown case?
This article needs to mention Poletown. General Motors was very involved in a case that is now defining eminent domain, a major political issue. Please include some mention of the legal case and GM's participation. If this article is included in WikiProject_United_States, we need to include how the company's policy is shaping US law.

Efkeathley 12:51, 06 March 2007 (EST)

Is there mention of the upcoming Transformers movie?
Since all of the cars used as disguises for the Autobots are from GM, there should be some mention of that in this article. Excuse me if I happened to miss it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FingManiac (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC).


 * That would probably go in, "General Motors in Popular Culture" if there is such a page. While Transformers in a landmark for 2007 marketing, it's not exactly the evergreen issue that the whole article in general is. It may be prudent to wait a while to see just how GM sales are affected by the film. 24.58.210.63 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chryler deals?
I've looked through this article and I've found nothing about the talks with DaimlerChrysler to buy Chrysler Corp. Someone should add it to the article. By the way, if GM does buy Chrysler, what would the do with Chrysler and Dodge? Jeep they could easily integrate into their lineup, yet Chrysler competes with Buick, and Dodge with Chevrolet. But then again, GMC competes with Chevrolet, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.31.63 (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC).


 * it was here, but was split off along with the rest of the History of General Motors section - Scottr76 06:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Economics/EV controversy/other changes
Since this has been rated 'B-class', yet no one has posted related complaints or suggested improvements, I will begin some:

I suggest the Economics section be removed for the following reasons:
 * Most of the first paragraph is about other automakers, and not anything directly related to GM, and sounds more like a defense of the tax breaks to Canadian citizens than anything that belongs in a GM article.
 * If this tax break is to be listed, what about every other tax break gm has received? Where does it end?
 * Second paragraph certainly does not belong here. Perhaps on Michigan or Ontario, but not here.
 * Third paragraph is probably the only significant/interesting information in the section, but could be incorporated elsewhere. It doesn't really belong under 'Economics' anyways.

Elsewhere, I feel that the EV controversy section would be more appropriate in its own article, perhaps including other automakers efforts, with a smaller summary in the GM page in a reintegrated/reworked history section. The entire 98-year history of the company and countless models have been moved to allow coverage of a relatively minor current event involving a single experimental low-run model to remain here. I know some will claim it is not a 'minor' issue, but keep in mind it is hardly the first controversy GM has faced, yet others are NOT covered here or even in the history article. Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed for example, is not mentioned at all, but was a far more important event for the company and automotive history in general. Notice that the EV issue is also brought up, somewhat extensively considering the information is covered elsewhere in the article, in the Environment and alternative vehicles portion of the 'Programs' section, and arguably in a POV manner. A separate EV article would allow for a fuller explanation of the issues while not cluttering up the GM page with propaganda from both sides.

'Social Policies' could use some work, too, I am sure there are far more than two (currently uncited) items worth mentioning, positive or negative. if not, this section should be removed. - Scottr76 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

'Largest car manufacturer'
This title is based on ANNUAL sales, not quarterly. Until sales figures for all of 2007 are released, GM still holds this title, even if Toyota has beat them for one quarter, or even 3. Source: Detroit News/AP article regarding Toyota's 1Q 2007 sales results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottr76 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Who on earth is editing this to make it seem as if GM is still the largest manufacturer? It's an accepted standard that we are measuring "largest" by number of vehicles sold, NOT revenue, or profit. In fact this person has changed all of the major motor manufacturers, including Ford and Toyota! This is very misleading and should be corrected. Unless we are about to change the way in which we measure largest?

The guy at the top is right, Gm still holds that title. It is judged annually and can't be changed until this whole years sales are up. But Toyota does hold the title for the 1st quarter so I'll post that instead, but NOT for the year. In fact, if the Gm talks with DaimlerChrysler to buy Chrysler fall through, Toyota will not gain that title for a few years at the least.

I edited the first sentence to reflect BOTH sales volume (which is be measured quarterly) and production volume (measured annually). I would include sales revenue, but the source listed for that had no such information, only sales and production. If someone has a reference for revenue, that could be included, but not at the expense of the others. I think this is the best compromise between the two sides, rather than an edit war going on every time one company sells a few more cars than the other, or produces more, or whatever. There's no reason both methods can't be shown here. However, full-year production volume is typically used to declare the ranking of 'largest', as is written referenced article, and numerous others.--Scottr76 22:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As further defense of this edit, while the old version (showing sales revenue only) was called 'simple and sweet', it has the following problems:

The figures — and sales growth rates — indicate that Toyota could overtake GM as the No. 1 automaker Please note that it says 'could overtake', not 'has overtaken'. It clearly states the sales volume from last year, which supports with hard data that GM is largest by annual production.
 * It is incorrect. Rankings of size are determined by annual production volume, and is not determined until the end of the year, as stated in the referenced article.
 * No citation. Nowhere in the article referenced will you find any mention of sales revenue, only sales volume.
 * As a compromise to those who point out that GM has fallen behind this year, I feel it is fair to include sales volume for the current year, which can be updated as the year progresses. This is NPOV, whereas excluding one or the other could be seen as taking one side or the other.
 * Both pieces of data are relevant and important, and neither should be dismissed, especially when the one that IS being dismissed is the standard by which the title is determined.
 * General Motors still claims the title of largest automaker themselves, see GM Corporate Information. I have yet to see anything from Toyota themselves that claims they are 'largest', most likely because they also accept that full-year production is the standard by which those claims are made.
 * Even in the referenced article states:

If it is changed to 'largest by sales revenue', I think it would be reasonable to request a source both for that information and that such a title is an accepted standard by which to judge the size of an automaker.--Scottr76 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First the newspaper link doe snot work and also GM will continue to state they are the largest just like Toyota may also do the same and until we get the absolute facts we will keep it like this.Sparrowman980 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * not sure which newspaper link you're talking about, unless it's the one already in the article, but i will repeat it here: Toyota slips behind GM in second quarter. I was using that merely as a supporting argument, i would not use that as my entire argument. I think the article in question already supplies the 'absolute facts' but i will agree to leave it as only sales volume until others give their opinions, mostly because i don't plan on spending all day every day reverting your edits, and i'm sure you don't want the same. I do, however, feel it is inaccurate and that omitting the standard by which 'largest' is determined lacks neutrality.--Scottr76 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion on this is:
 * The most accepted way of stating the sales figures is on an annual basis. This is what most companies use to brag. Monthly or quarterly are too dynamic and hence not quoted (generally). An analogy could be the list of companies by revenues (Fortune Global 500 for example), is drawn once a year and that is what companies refer, not a montly revenue ranking.
 * Therefore, ideally it would be best to leave it with the 2006 ranking, until the 2007 figures are out (for the whole year). Personally, understanding the feelings of those who wish to see Toyota on top, it is only a question of 6 more months, and if projections are right, it will happen anyway. The reason for leaving it as such, however, are clear: While it is likely, it isnt a certainty, and Wikipedia should state facts, not probables.
 * If we have to go by quarterly figures, then I recommend the current version, as it states the exact status: GM is the largest selling, during the last 3 months.AJ-India 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if the difference in opinion/interpretation can be discussed here.


 * As it has been, thank you for joining. As stated above, the problems with the following:
 * "...the world's largest largest automaker by sales revenue as of the second quarter of 2007 [2] (ahead of Toyota Motor Corporation). Toyota has, however, outsold GM in the first six months of the year." include:
 * 1. largest is used twice. the article has been repeatedly reverted to this, which would make it seem that some may not really know what it is they are reverting to.
 * 2. sales revenue does not equal sales volume or production volume, and is not stated in the article at all. So please, if you insist on reverting, keep sales VOLUME, which is what is supported by the facts provided.
 * 3. Why are we including BOTH the most recent quarter and for the six months? if, as you argue, full year is what matters (and i would agree with that), we should include as much of this year as possible.
 * 4. As I have stated above, I support including that they are the largest manufacturer by full-year production volume, which IS the standard that 'largest' is determined in the auto industry, as is stated in the article. Sparrowman980 disagreed, and took that portion out 'until we get the absolute facts', which i will argue we DO have, since it is stated in the article. I don't agree with that, but left it as is until we had more input and a consensus was formed.
 * 5. Eliminating that Toyota had higher sales volume than GM for the first six months could be considered biased by some, and is certain to reverted, so to avoid that, it does no harm to include that information.--Scottr76 05:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it is production volume, not revenue, sorry for not having noted that. Probably happened because I mearely modified an existing sentence, which was earlier citing another website.

Quite honestly, there isnt much I disagree with, in what you say. Like I stated earlier, the best option is to leave it at the last available annual data, which is for the year 2006. The article is afterall about General motors an automaker, not it's sales through the last few months. We can, elsewhere in the article, mention that the current trend indicates Toyota is going to overtake/ has already overtaken GM.

The repetition of largest, well, I myself didnt like it, but added it for the reason you mentioned (seeming bias against Toyota).AJ-India 07:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

GM-AvtoVAZ
Why GM-AvtoVaz isn't mentioned in the article? On the GM homepage it is also not mentioned. But at this page it exists. I'm very puzzled. --Kuemmjen 17:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Update
We need to know there profit there employees and the rest and we all know it all down. (Sparrowman980 05:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC))


 * for one, revenue was up in 2006 (207 billion from 194 billion. from what i can see, the numbers for net income are incorrect, and was actually a net loss of 2 billion (although according to their press release, adjusted net income was +2.2 billion), but was still up from the year before. number of employees is down, however i don't think that's the right usage for the arrow. i could be wrong.--Scottr76 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Now what we need is the end of the 2006 facts.(Sparrowman980 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Chevrolet Volt under Electric Vehicles?
Is it considered too early by Wikipedia standards to insert mention of the Chevrolet Volt into the "Electric Car" section? I know that the vehicle is upcoming and not near production yet, but it could be mentioned as another effort by GM.

Corporate Restructuring Section: Sentence: The Federal Reserve in a move to quell the stock market
The Federal Reserve does not base its actions on the stock market. It did not increase interest rates to quell the stock market but to keep inflation risks contained. The interest rate increases may have quelled the stock market, but the Federal Reserve does not increase interest rates just to quell the stock market. If that were the case, then in 2007 the stock market should have been quelled from the Fed increasing rates from a low of 1% to its current 5.25%.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

Update to the Board of Directors?
Hi, my name is Christopher Barger, and I work for General Motors' communications. No, I have never been here before; no, I have never edited anything on Wikipedia before; and no, I am not here to get into a debate with anyone over their edits or point of view. I just had an update.

One of my colleagues brought to my attention today that the list of our Board of Directors on this page is out of date. I have the most current list below. Given that there's been so much controversy over companies editing their own pages, and even so much cynicism about whether GM comms people have been spinning here, I figured that my making even such an inocuous edit as updating our BoD might be troublesome, so I am asking the community: Would it breach any protocols for me to update the BoD list? If not, could someone please make the edit to reflect the most current Board as listed below?

Thanks for your time and any guidance you have.

Christopher Barger General Motors Communications

GM Board of Directors (per 2007 proxy):

Percy N. Barnevik Erskine B. Bowles John H. Bryan Armando M. Codina Erroll B. Davis, Jr. George M.C. Fisher Karen Katen Kent Kresa Ellen J. Kullman Philip A. Laskawy Kathryn V. Marinello Eckhard Pfeiffer G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. Christopher Barger 18:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris - I updated the current board composition after verifying it on GM's website. Though I'm not convinced that the article needs to list every board member, but that's a separate matter.  In the future, correcting very simple and uncontroversial factual stuff like this is OK and should not represent a conflict of interest.  Please take a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines for more information.  Cheers, Skinwalker 19:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebadging Popular Models
Can anyone verify whether the following brands were all the same model?

Nova (Chevrolet) Omega (Oldsmobile) Ventura (Pontiac) Apollo (Buick)

The cars were all similar, and notice that when the names are arranged as above, the first letters spell "Nova" in an acrostic.

John Paul Parks (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

net income
I feel that the annual net income, as taken from the annual report, is what should be used here, however, it seems a couple of editors feel it should be the quarterly results (and, i might add, neglect to even provide a source for their numbers). The rest of the companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average use the annual net income, and I feel that GM should remain consistent with that. Is there any kind of consensus for what should be used?--Scottr76 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Labor relations" section
I am very certain that the history of labour relations with General Motors extend long before the September 2007 strike, which is the only thing commented on it the section titled "Labor Relations". Should the section be expanded to include the history of GM labour relations? Should it be retitled "September 2007 strike"? Should the text be deleted and the reader be directed to the article on the 2007 General Motors strike? What should be done with that section? Respectfully, SamBlob 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Current/past lines
Just a quick note: Daewoo is still actively sold in US with brand new 2008 models available. They are no longer actively marketed but are still available for purchase at many larger Saab dealers (and some others). I've re-added it into the list of active lines.

As for Geo, they are now a sub-brand of Chevy. I agree that they are no longer their own line. That's why I marked it as a sub-brand. The Chevy Geo M, Chevy Geo Lt, and Chevy Geo ECO are all available for purchase from larger dealers. I've added the notation to the defunct list rather than the active list, I believe that should cause no controversy. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that Daewoo is sold in the US doesn't really make it a North American brand - it's Korean. The distinction between active North American and overseas brands has become meaningless as various brands are sold in multiple markets. Daewoos and Holdens are sold as Chevrolet in some markets, Holdens as Buick and Daewoo, Daewoo as Holden etc etc etc. I suggest the two sections be amalgamated into a single list of current brands. And from a world POV, North America is "overseas" for most of us. Paul Fisher (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with that. Unless there is some overwhelming reason stated not to make a single list each of active and defunct brands; I will make those changes tomorrow night (Sunday, 15 December 2007 CTC). I just took some issue with the revert that removed Daewoo from the active American list as it is currently an active, though unmarketed, brand; Daewoo cars are sold under the Daewoo brand name in the US. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Alert: GM is editing this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=56195585

Straight from Wikipedia scanner. The whois:

OrgName:   General Motors Corporation OrgID:     GMC-20 Address:   200 Renaissance Center City:      Detroit StateProv: MI PostalCode: 48265 Country:   US

NetRange:  198.208.0.0 - 198.208.255.255

This is totally absurd. I'm tagging this as POV immediately.

67.142.130.24 (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that GM-owned IP ranges have edited this article doesn't make it POV. Besides, the edit you cited above doesn't reflect this article's current state. We use dispute tags to flag the current version, not past edits in the article's history. A quick scan through this article shows that perhaps some passages could use some slight NPOV help, but overall this article is balanced. I am removing the tag. szyslak  07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Toyota moves up
Toyota has recently moved up in sales and is now the top seller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.25.209 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Toyota moves up (2)
== THE BIG MOVE Toyota has sold more motor vehicles than the leading company --71.10.25.209 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Christian Brown

Flexpower engines
In the biofuel section, there is nothing about Brazilian gasoline/ethanol Flexfuel engines. GM was one of the first carmakers to offer flexible-fuel engines in that country, and had ethanol-only engines in their lineup for decades. Part of that knowledge has been used by Saab in their Biopower engines. Can someone research a little more to expand that section? -- NaBUru38 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing warring over 2007 results
In the interest of article stability and 3RR violations, is there a more agreeable way to include 2007 results and its implications? Since the article is meant to be encyclopedic, it seems the intro should discuss GM's overall, historical presence, with a reference to 2007's results, then include a section further down about the controversial results and the implications sourcing per WP:RS as this is a controversial/contested area. The WaPo article seem to be the most reliable source used so far; blogs, topix, GM annual reports are not considered WP:WP and used only after discussion and concensus. Flowanda | Talk 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet again, editors are making changes about current events that don't belong in an encyclopedic article. Am I just hanging out here by myself thinking that "multinational corporation" is exactly the way to describe, um, what's this company's name? Flowanda | Talk 07:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I agree with you. Whether GM is the "biggest" depends entirely on how "big" is defined (volume of sales, revenue, volume of sales weighted by value of the vehicle, etc). Until we reach agreement on that, it's probably best to say that GM is "one of the biggest". Paul Fisher (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, as per the New York Times, USA Today, Wards Auto World, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and a myriad of others, I am listing GM as the worlds largest automaker by sales for calendar year 2007. To the idiot who keeps changing this on the GM as well as the Toyota page, stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.143.150 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Since it seems like the more eyes we have on this article, the better chance we have of achieving consensus and stability, I made a request here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Respond here or there as you see fit. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

First off: GM beat Toyota (9,369,000 vs. 9,366,000) vehicles in 2007; but I will admit that this week's news is not encouraging as far as them keeping their now razor thin lead. Secondly: GM is working on a number of new fronts for future growth; Electric Vehicles, Regular Hybrids, Plug-In Hybrids, Electonic Controls of nearly all systems, Gasoline and Diesel Engine Efficiency and Green Technology, and perhaps most significantly of all they are increasing their manufacturing presence in areas of the world with the most potential for future growth (such as China).JeepAssembler (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not just say "GM claims to have sold more cars than anyone in 2007. However, some sources indicate that the title goes to Toyota, while others support GMs claim", and you can expand on that further in a section below. People don't need to make a big deal out of it. Just paraphrase the various sources. Nobody buys a car just because it's from the biggest company in the world whoever may have that title, so stop flag waiving and get over yourselves.--Analogue Kid (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no flag waving; just stating the facts; which Toyota itself admitted (I believe in the U.S.A. Today newspaper earlier this month). And it IS a big deal who is the World's Number One Automobile Manufacturer (and has been ever since sales of the Model T really took off in 1914; in fact; GM's displacing Ford for that title in 1931 was a source of consternation at the latter company; Edsel Ford wound up getting in debt to bankers, whom his father Henry hated). And in fact there are a lot of people who buy only based on brand loyalty for whatever reasons; being the biggest company was/is one of GM's sources of customer loyalty. Unfortunately, a lot people in the United States have become just as attached to import makes (including some very stupid people where I work) and then whine about the economy when good paying U.A.W. jobs are lost.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When there is controversy, especially controversy over a claim, the best thing to do is report the controversy, source the claims, and let the reader decide for themselves, rather than edit warring over which version is correct. Ultimately whether GM sold more vehicles or Toyota did in 2007 is not really that important in the grand scheme of things, compared to overall trends, regardless of the arguments advanced. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, which automaker made and sold more vehicles IS very important; If Toyota passes up G.M. in those regards it will be one anecdotal signal that world power is shifting from North America to East Asia; much as the mass production of the Model T Ford was one of the signs that world power was shifting from Western Europe to North Ameriaca a century ago.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't do anecdotes though. If you think it's important, fine. Find sources that support the claim and cite them, as well as ones that say it hasn't changed, or whatever, and note that there is controversy. Edit warring over it would really not be a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You should do anecdotes; everyone should be concerned about the future and how it will effect their lives: Standard of Living, etc.JeepAssembler (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to review our policy on what Wikipedia is not, particularly this section. The policies which require neutral point of view, and suggest that advocacy and original research are not appropriate here have worked well so far. There are lots of other places to editorialise, but this is not one of them, it's an encyclopedia. Readers come here for neutral, objective, verifiable information. ++Lar: t/c 05:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave objective and verifiable information about production, sales, technologies, and location of production (which can be checked in newspapers and magazines). But evidently some people took it as editorializing; even though I mentioned that things are changing very fast.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact is it is a close call and there is some controversy over who is bigger. In cases like these it is best to say things like The New York Times (or GM) has called GM the worlds largest car maker."  Then provide the source and let readers decide for themselves.  We really should not be in the business of sorting out whos claims are more valid. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * JeepA: If you put neutral, verifiable, cited material in the article, I'll help support it, ping me if it gets reverted away (rather than edit warring). Just leave out the "things are changing fast" part, unless that too is cited, because that's synthesis. Daniel has it just so, report that some say X and some say Y and that there is controversy about whether X or Y is actually the case, and let the reader make up their own mind. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring on the numbers continues. I had provided a recent source which seemed to support GM's small margin as top-seller ; this was promptly reverted. I've also noticed this source, which was provided earlier this month by another contributor. It, too, has been reverted in favor of sources which pre-date the more recent findings. Same edit war occurs on the Toyota page, also relying on information that might not be up-to-date. An explanation for the reverts would be welcome. JNW (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found this piece which supports the Toyota claim, and offers an interesting commentary from a high-level official at GM, which might make it a valid source, despite its blogness. Might not be the last word, but it suggests the value in discussion, especially on a matter where the math is close and subject to spin and interpretation. JNW (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Annual sales 3,000 vehicles ??
I guess you mean 3,000,000 but I don't think it is written in the link you provide in note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.6.29.54 (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GM - Auto Racing
Hi,

I am Ron Cox, retired Delco Electronics (Delphi) in 2001. I am completely new to Wikipedia, This is my first talk ever there. But with the help of my friend Phil Crosno in California, we proposed to add the history of our electronics development for GM racing engines to this site. Specifically I would like to see the history starting with the first engine management systems installed experimentally in the 1986-1987 seasons on Penski team cars through the Chevy V8s and Aurora engines.

Any thoughts on organization? Should this be a new section or part of the existing GM auto racing?

Ron, W9kfb

W9kfb (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Homgenous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI)
There is an article in a respected magazine (Automotive Engineering, March 2008; pages 34 to 37) that discusses how General Motors and several other OEMs (Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen were also named in the article) are currently working on HCCI technology, convinced that it may be the next big thing for Internal Combustion Engines. They use gasoline but find a way to completely mix the air and fuel (hence the term homogenous); which causes the mixture to combust under pressure without a spark, theoretically combining gasoline's lower cost with diesel's greater efficiency. But without the SOx or NOx emissions resulting from the higher temperatures of the gas engine. Supposedly much of the technological infrastructure exists already (such as gasoline direct fuel injection).

But techical difficulties remain before cars can be produced with HCCI engines; it will take continuous computer monitoring of the pressure, concentration of fuel, and combustion chamber's internal temperature to control this inherently unstable process (Just slight variations in any of these parameters will cause no ignition at all). Finally, an HCCI engine will sometimes function as a normal Spark-Ignition engine; the control systems will also need to monitor and actuate this transition as well. JeepAssembler (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Im ersten Quartal verkaufte General Motors nur noch rund 283.000 Fahrzeuge"

 * http://www.faz.net/s/RubF3F7C1F630AE4F8D8326AC2A80BDBBDE/Doc~E2E992B1E29EF4AD9A055B4EA8F77089D~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html


 * Small translation service for non-German speakers ;-) Above unsigned entry is not from me. I am only the messenger ;-)


 * The header says: "In the first quarter [2008] GM sold only 283,000 vehicles". Having had a quick look through the article, the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - a respected, nationwide broadsheet) warns potential investors not to buy GM stock. The article is dated 3 April 2008.


 * HagenUK (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Deutsche Betriebswirtschaft

 * Kerngeschäft eines Autoherstellers und Motorenherstellers ist die Produktion von Autos und Motoren.
 * Kerngeschäft ist es, wenn 74.000 Industriearbeiter in den USA alle 50.000.000 Autos und alle 50.000.000 Motoren die weltweit 2008 gebaut werden zu bauen.
 * Kerngeschäft ist es, diese 50.000.000 Motoren und Autos zu einem weltweiten Verkaufspreis von 100000 Dollarcent zu verkaufen.


 * Again, translation service for non-German speakers ;-) Above unsigned entry is not from me, I am only the messenger ;-)


 * Header: "German microecomics" [Sounds like the title of a publication ... not sure]
 * Core business for a car and engine manufactor is the production of cars and engines [Stating the blindingly obvious?!?]
 * It would be core business, if 74,000 industrial workers in the USA would build all 50,000,000 cars and 50,000,000 engines worldwide in 2008.
 * It would be core business, to sell these 50,000,000 engines and cars worldwide for 100000 Dollarcent [sic]"


 * Since this doesn't make sense in English, please let me assure you that it does not make sense in German either. No idea what the contributor is trying to sell us. If an administrator sees this, maybe just remove the whole section. It is simply non-sense.


 * HagenUK (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gm
General motors is the "second" largest Automaker after Toyota. Please refrain from posting your own personal opinions, I understand alot of americans are upset but facts are facts, and should be included in wikipedia. Dwilso 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Toyota vs GM at #1
I believe some discussion is warranted for this. As is currently referenced very early in the article, Toyota overtook GM for the first quarter of 2008 in global sales. However, is there a better way of wording it, and also, is it something that needs to be changed on the basis of a single quarter instead of year-by-year totals? Ayocee (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make the situation absolutely clear with this revision, although I'm sure someone can put it a bit more eloquently than I have. For all sorts of reasons, annual figures are a much better metric for gauging size than quarterly, so I'd propose that GM should still be described as the world's largest automaker based on sales in 07. Gr1st (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bargaining history, the UAW, and the Flint Sit down strike
I find it surprising that you can talk about GM without mentioning much about the history of its collective bargaining, and without ever mentioning the Flint Sit-Down Strike, which was a pivot point in his history and the history of organized labor. It's like there was no history, bargaining or otherwise, before 2007. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

Canadian Auto Workers strike
IMO this article should at least mention the current CAW strike. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They can't both be right.
This article claims GM is the 'world's largest automaker' which is exactly the same claim made in the article about Toyota. The Toyota claim is backed up by citations however, the GM claim isn't.

Incidentally the phrase 'world's largest' needs defining since it could mean anything for example, most employees, largest profit, largest turnover, most production plants, most vehicles produced, most vehicles sold, etc.

'BS detector' 2nd July 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They CAN both be right.  Of course they can.  Changing the period you measure according to the answer you want is the oldest trick in the book.   Keep a look out for it especially whenever you meet someone who wants to sell you ... almost anything.   In this case, there seems to have been one or more quarters during 2008 when Toyota sold more cars than GM worldwide, but (1) Toyota don't like to crow about it, being inherently averse to hubris, and maybe also for fear of creating an adverse feeling in the US and (2) worldwide sales statistics aren't that quick 'n easy to collect.   Soon after the end of 2008 it will be apparent whether Toyota or GM sold more vehicles - sorry, make that passenger automobiles - during 2008, and that will be the time to arbitrate on whether GM is or merely was the world's largest automaker in terms if units sold in 2008.   Even after that, I suppose you might come out with a different result of you chose to measure 'world's largest automaker' not in terms of cars sold, but in terms of gross sales revenue - retail receipts from car sales - or of net sales revenue - retail receipts net of commercially confidential rebates accounted for differently according to who got what where. Charles01 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Global sales leader
GM's perch atop the global sales leader charts ended earlier this year, and it is highly unlikely it will regain the spot in time to claim the title for calendar year 2008. It is deceptive to use terms like "has been" which imply "ongoing" under such circumstances, unless additional information about Toyota is provided. That information was removed, so I changed the phrasing to From 1911-2007, GM was the world's largest automaker as measured by global industry sales. If you change it back to "has been" please restore the information about Toyota. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To say it is highly unlikely that GM will regain the spot is crystal-balling. Toyota outsold GM in Q1 2007, but GM ultimately won the year. The global sales for Q2 2008 aren't in yet, but in the U.S. GM handily (and unexpectedly) outsold Toyota (see here). Annual figures are preferred as they smooth out the volatility that occurs from quarter to quarter (seasonal effects, etc.) I don't think we should be making a blanket judgement that GM has been surpassed by Toyota on the basis of three month's numbers. Gr1st (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have made the same edits in July 2007 if I'd been monitoring the article. Here's an analogy:  If a runner wins 5 New York Marathons in a row, and it's 30 minutes into today's race and he's in 2nd place, it's unfair to say "he's been winning the last 5 years" without disclosing he is behind in the current race.  You can either say he's won the last 5 races, or that he's been winning but is not ahead in the current race, but you can't say "he's been winning" leaving the implied but unstated "and he's ahead in the current race" in the reader's mind. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Much happier with the lead as it stands now. Perhaps it might be an idea to create a section about the Toyota rivalry/race for #1 which treats the issue in depth. There's been no end of media coverage over the last few years. Gr1st (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

With reference to the current opening paragraph, what does 'global industry sales' mean? Does it mean the selling of 'global industries' or 'industry sales' around the globe? if it is the former, I don't believe GM has sold ANY 'global industries' and if it is the later, what is an 'industry sale'?

Wouldn't 'as measured by the number of vehicles sold annually' be less ambiguous?

The link that is provided (#7) actually states the opposite of the implied claim. If anyone actually bothers to read the article they will see that it says, "the slowdown in the United States market had led to a first-quarter sales decline that gave Toyota the early lead in this year’s global sales race".

BS detector 7th July 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Link #7 does not contradict the opening paragraph. The paragraph states "as of January 1, 2008, GM was the world's largest automaker as measured by global industry sales". The NYT article (ref. #7) states "Toyota outsold G.M. in the same period a year ago [i.e. Q1 2007] but ended the year [i.e. 2007] about 3,100 vehicles short of G.M." Of course, I'm sure that anyone who actually bothers to read the article will see that it says that. Gr1st (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An "industry sale" is basically a sale anywhere around the globe in the relevant industry, in this case, car or truck sales. It would not include unrelated sales and I don't think it includes sales of accessories such as floor-mats that aren't considered sold as part of the car sale.  I agree, the Toyota issue deserves more press but there was a near-edit-war last week over the text in the introduction, and the current version, which states how things were at the beginning of the year, seems to be an acceptable compromise.  I'm willing to live with it, at least until the 2008 numbers come out early next year.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

GM was the annual leader in the most recent official statistics, and that is what should be stated in the article lead, not speculation that Toyota is about to overtake it. However, I think the lead should include something on the serious financial problems GM is facing, including large scale layoffs and the huge loss booked in the last fiscal year (I believe the largest loss booked by a company in a single year ever). TastyCakes (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting the date of the end of the reporting period, January 1, 2008, seems to be the consensus solution to an otherwise edit-war-launching problem. If you want to add information to the lead that hasn't been the subject of discussion already, you can be bold and do so, or propose your wording here for discussion if you think it's likely to be controversial.   davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that anything which refers to either GM or Toyota as currently No.1 will almost certainly be changed to No.2 by an anonymous IP within days. If you can stomach six months of reversion after reversion, then by all means go for it. Gr1st (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if that's the case, maybe the article needs semi-protection... TastyCakes (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Gr1st I agree, that is because ‘currently number 1’ doesn’t mean anything. Just like ‘global industry sales’ it could mean almost anything. Unless a clearly defined phrase is used, readers will infer whatever they want.

As I suggested earlier, 'as measured by the number of vehicles sold annually' would end the confusion over ‘annual sales’ versus ‘last quarter’ sales. The inclusion of the word ‘vehicle’ is important because both GM and Toyota sell many other things besides vehicles. For all we know ‘industry sales’ could include snacks from vending machines in GM showrooms.

'BS detector' 10th July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GM's $15.5 Billion Loss (2Q 2008)Is Third-Biggest in a Century! (and Wikipedia is mum)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=au.TL_ofjGuM&refer=home

 GM's $15.5 Billion Loss (2Q 2008)Is Third-Biggest in a Century  and Wikipedia is mum! What a fine encylopedia !!!

Grüsse aus Deutschland. 79.210.122.160 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an article that was published today. Wikipedia is not a news source of current events, and there's no evidence any info was added or removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, whether you have a name or a number. Have at it. Seriously. It's the edits that matter. Flowanda | Talk 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Flowanda, you say Wikipedia is not a news source. Ok, then I have the following question to you : The article states that this is the third-biggest loss in a century. So, the biggest and the second-biggest losses apparently did not happen yesterday or last week; they apparently happend some time ago within the last century. They are therefore not news! And as biggest and  second-biggest losses in a century they are clearly significant events. So, please, where are they reported in Wikipedia? Grüsse aus Deutschland.79.210.108.116 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noted the above development. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia entirely reliant on contributions by unpaid volunteers, in future your energies might be better spent adding information yourself instead of making sarky comments about its absence (in this case only a few hours after the news broke). We can always do with more editors, so be bold and off you go. Gr1st (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do they keep getting this money to lose? Comradeash (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Model T 2.0?
Who introduced planned obsolescence into production? I'm thinking it was Harley Earl, but... Add it here, here, & here, if you can name him. Thanks. (We can safely rule out Henry...)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Moefuzz (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Alfred P Sloan, CEO of GM brought forward or 'invented' the process in the med 20's and forced GM engineers to build a breaking mousetrap. GM engineers were very upset and brought up the topic of how to deal with their peers forcing them to build things with a death date in the late 20's early 30's at the annual SAE (Society of Automobile Engineers) conventions.
 * Many corps such as alka seltzer followed along in the way Sloan's plan was laid out to create more market share. The popular 'Plop Plop Fizz Fizz' commercials we remember regarding dropping 2 alka seltzer tablets in a glass to relive problems stemmed from the 1920's where 'plop fizz' was the norm. But by imply that you now needed 2 alka seltzer tablets rather than one, increased sales and market share by 100%.
 * -Alfred Sloan's Planned Obsolescence at it's finest some 5 years after Sloan implemented it at GM.

http://laramie.willshireltd.com/DynamicObsolescence.html


 * The model T was A Ford Product and Henry Ford detested the GM plan and saw it as no more than a cash grab ans swindling of the general public. The times were referred to as 'Fordism' vs Sloanism' A google search of such may help shed light on Ford's easily serviceable and durable products vs Sloan's 'Planned Obsolescence.

moe Moefuzz (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with the article
I just wanted to let the editors of this page know that I had an editor ask for help concerning the article, seen here and here. Feel free to take these comments for what they are. Of course, there is always trouble with this sort of thing, and having not read the article I cant make an opinion for myself, but usually if someone finds something wrong with an article, then there usually is something wrong :/ Thanks for your time and any improvements you all can make! :)  « Gonzo fan2007  '' (talk)  @  04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor also added the disputed neutrality template, which I think is a good idea for now.  « Gonzo fan2007  '' (talk)  @  04:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, this article has considerable negative info throughout including several statements regarding their dire financial situation. If there are suggestions regarding something specifically negative that should be added than that would be fine, but a general and incorrect statement "this article has nothing negative in it" can't be justification for a tag. --Leivick (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Canadian Auto Workers bargaining
Why do we even have this section? Certainly it doesn't need expanding. For an article on a hundred-year old company - one of the largest companies in the world, this incident seems to minor to warrant much article space. Rmhermen (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm yeah it doesn't seem to say anything particularly important. In fact maybe all of the labour stuff could be rolled into one or two paragraphs concerning all strikes in the company's history?  Can't be that many, can it?  If it is, perhaps it warrants a small article of its own.  TastyCakes (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here specifically looking for this issue. I would make a small recommendation that if it's removed, perhaps just remove it from the main GM page and include the link to various labour issues by country.  There's a lot of controversy about GM labour.  I was hoping there'd be a reference citing info about GM trying to close the Oshawa, ON plant. Gba111 (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The credit crunch.
It apears GM is going sadly bancrupt now []. [] --86.29.249.32 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"GM has prided its research and prototype development of hydrogen powered vehicles"

This seems bias to me. Things that might be hurtful to GM's image, like downsizing and strikes seem to be underrepresented and taboo.

C41-8W 11/27/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by C41-8W (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

GM's Founding in Flint and Move to Detroit
This article, nor the history article for GM, mention when General Motors moved from Flint to Detroit. Can someone do some research and find this? It's a very important date, because its the start of when GM went from being a local/regional company, to a national and global corporation. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy
It is a little redundant to talk about "Who Killed the Electric Car" in both Electric Car Issues and in Electric Car. Also, I believe that the EV1 does not have to have that big of a space in this article, since it has its own article about it.--&#39;Vette Dude1 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New vice chairman on the way
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/bob-lutz-to-ret.html Bob Lutz, GM Vice Chairman – Global Product Development, will retire at the end of 2009. In the interim, he will move into a new role, effective 1 April 2009, as Vice Chairman and Senior Advisor to continue to provide strategic input into GM’s global design and key product initiatives.

Tom Stephens, currently Executive Vice President, Global Powertrain and Global Quality, will become Vice Chairman – Global Product Development, reporting to President and Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson. In this new assignment, Stephens will maintain his responsibility for overseeing GM’s global quality activity. I didn't see any Bio for him at Thomas_Stevens. -- Jake (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Needing Updating
I decided to flag the Advertising 2008–2009 section for needing updating: Every statement in that section has since already come and gone and thus no longer future but past events. I'm sure noone would object to it, and I assume the references would remain as is. Either way, the rest of the article stays current and once the job is finished the flag can come down. Not too much work. -Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite Intro
The introduction does not adequately summarize the article's contents. It is slanted toward recent events.Synchronism (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just came here to make the same note. The company is over 100 years old, but the lead is 75% based on events that have occurred within the last 2 months.  Certainly the last 2 months have witnessed major events and should covered in the article, but the lead is terribly unbalanced. Dman727 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the intro is perfect. The first paragraph discusses when the company was founded, what it makes, how much and where. The second paragraph discusses very important recent material related to the possible impending collapse of the company and the filing for bankruptcy of one its divisions (Saab). By no means should the second paragraph be moved from the lead.Facts707 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Financial Practices

 * I just eliminated this section. Despite there being much to criticize, the segment contained nothing but bleating about tax payers. Hope somebody can restore it with substantive content.Calamitybrook (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Calamitybrook, who are you to decide whether that section had merit? Next time, how about if you don't have an improvement, you just leave it alone and wait for someone to fix it? That section might have needed work, but who are you to delete even the basis for it? I don't feel like it was your place to just delete the whole section because you disagreed with the content. Please, next time just edit it up so that it seems correct, or leave it alone. Unless you're a moderator and it was violating some kind of rule or something, don't try to squelch opposing viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemrin (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This section may be ok considering the recent events. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reaction to 2008/2009 global economic decline
While this section contains a detailed timeline of events, it almost completely fails to mention GM's reaction to... No mention of the plant closings and idle-ings, layoff, buyouts, announced marquee closures, union renegotiations. Where is the mention of the actions GM has taken or announced? Rmhermen (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's pretty apparent that this article is heavily edited by GM, which isn't unusual on wikipedia. When the company collapses you'll see it become a bit more balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.155.191 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a strong assumption. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not be surprised at all. All the image issues, which gave this event a high profile in the press and inspired the public, like the comment "They basically come here to Washington with their Lear-Jets holding a begging-bowl in their hands", have disappeared. Shame, shame. Xufanc (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Information template problems
The update to the GM info template at the top changed the net income figure to $-6.0 billion from the previous figure of about $-30 billion. The new figure, however, is not the correct figure for use; The negative 6 billion dollars are first quarter net earnings for 2009, whereas the older figure, as well as all the other earnings figures in the template, are full-year 2008 statistics. In general, this inaccuracy is not acceptable, but because it's the general practice in corporation articles' templates to use the most recent full-year statistics, all from the same year, I'm changing back the Q1 2009 net income figure to the calendar year 2008 figure to match the others, rerouting citation [2] to the 2008 calendar year reports, and I will also recommend that, despite pending release of other statistics for Q1 2009, we don't change the template to single-quarter earnings reports and statistics, even if all the relevant data is had, because the norm is full year statistics.--Merechriolus (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Auto Finance 

Employees
The infobox says: Employees - 252,000 (2008)[2]. Is this the current number as well, or has it changed with any significance? How are we gonna know the numbers in two, three months when the company has changed so dramatically? 83.108.225.137 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:CRYSTAL. We don't. We wait for reliable sources to report them once the dust has settled. WP:NOT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I also just noticed the info box says 252,000 however the opening paragraph says 244,500. Which is the correct number? Bgautrea (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcy
The bankruptcy of General Motors is scheduled for 0800 EDT 1 JUN 2009. --John Nagle (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Expect an active day of editing on Monday 6/1/09 on this article: the official filing of paperwork at the courts is scheduled for 8 am EST and announcements from President Obama at 11:55 am EST and GM CEO Fritz Henderson at 12:15 pm EST. http://www.autonews.com/article/20090531/ANA04/905319980/1078 24.98.20.220 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * so shouldnt everything be changed to past tense? ie GM "was" one of the world's largest car manufacturers... vroman (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bankruptcy is not immediate liquidation or dissolution of the company. There is no cause to refer to GM in the past tense. Varaaki (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcy article?
Shouldn't there be an article on the GM bankruptcy, like there is for Chrysler? Chrysler bankruptcy 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Say ? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Largest bankruptcies
At the top of the page, it says this was the fourth largest, while in the Bankruptcy section at the bottom it says it is the third largest. Which is it? --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a question of prioritising sources according to their times of creation and publication. I speak with my Wikinews editor hat on to provide an insight into this: Before the court documents were actually filed, news sources were saying the third, and that is what most news sources who simply published the stories that they had prepared ahead of time reported.  When I started U.S. manufacturer General Motors declares bankruptcy, I took the assets figure reported, by Bloomberg, that were in the actual filing, rather than estimates made ahead of time, and a table of prior bankruptcies from New Generation Research.  GM ranked below the third and above the fourth in the NGR table.  Ironically, as I was writing the Wikinews article, NGR updated its table, listing GM fourth.  Since then, other news sources, such as the one cited in this article in these edits, have also done the same arithmetic as I and NGR did, and found it to be the fourth, not third. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GM and nazi's
Someone keeps putting up this stuff about GM helping the Nazis. Which would be very interesting an all, but the reference sites are not what I would consider legitimate. Hell one of them is made to look like a news paper website, which its not, and the other two are some random conspiracy theory sites. Can someone please delete this?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.126.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Development of electronics for GM auto racing" section
I've moved the "Development of electronics for GM auto racing" section out into its |own article. It was way too long and detailed for a very niche part of GM (electronics for open-wheel racing) to be included on the main General Motors page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polpo (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good move. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops. The article got marked as copyvio. I should have checked it. Looks like it was cribbed from an official GM wiki. Polpo (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Double whoops! Looks like the text was contributed by the original author of the article. My apologies. Polpo (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Split or Fork
The news have it that General Motors as of today has split into New GM and Old GM — New GM, containing Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC, and Old GM, containing designated bad assets such as Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Saab — and Old GM to be headed (and beheaded) by Al Koch. My suggestion is to keep the article - and the topic about the historic automaker, and create two new articles New GM and Old GM for the "new" companies started today. Dedalus (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed thoroughly, as it has the potential to create a real mess if not done right. As such, New GM and Old GM have been redirected to General Motors until there is a concrete plan of action. (For one thing, we need to know what the company's actual title will be.) --Ckatz chat spy  21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's premature. But we do need to do some trimming.  I'd suggest spinning off the racing-related material into General Motors racing activities or something like that. --John Nagle (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On a wiki there is no need to know the name of something by how something will be called a year from now. Today, the two new companies go by the name New GM and Old GM. Suppose by the end of the week some marketing geek has found a new name for say New GM we can move then the article to that new name. And, furthermore, there is no concrete plan of action at all in creating Wikipedia beyond "anyone can edit". Actually, I only tested the viability of the two new companies New GM and Old GM. It looks like to me the two newborns died on their first day. In that case the U.S. taxpayers will have lost another 30 billion US dollar, the amount of money poured in the new companies. The market is always right. The U.S. dollar started slipping against the euro again. Dedalus (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also believe such a change would be premature. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's just easier to create a General Motors bankruptcy article to deal with all that, and this article will just detail what happened before and afterwards. (the "non performing GM" will not really exist for long) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There's now an explanation of what is formally planned to happen at General Motors bankruptcy.  I doubt that "old GM" and "new GM" are the proper, formal, names for these companies. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Closeapple moved New GM (which was a redirect at the time of move) to Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, showing proper wiki spirit. Dedalus (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

6 out of 7 pictures are hybrids/electric etc??
GM will not be remembered for its fuel efficient cars, but for its iconic cars. Surely, a picture of an old car would be better than yet another hybrid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.241.5 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I put in a picture of a classic GM muscle car, a 1969 Pontiac GTO. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Second-largest"
I think the second sentence of the introduction should be changed from "It is the world's second-largest automaker..." to "It was the world's second-largest automaker ... in 2008". In the current year, they have fallen behind German Volkswagen (and possibly other companies as well). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Added "bankrupt to the first sentence as well, since this seemed to be taken for granted in the rest of the introduction.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please help clean up the citations
Some of the citations are just bare URLs, often long ones. I've been fixing them up, but don't have time to do all of them right now. Please help. And if you put a reference in, use the proper citation template, please.

I switched the reflist back to single-column mode until this is done. That's temporary. Otherwise, we get text on top of text, which looks awful. As soon as the remaining bad refs are cleaned up, we can go back to 3 columns of references. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, after some cleanup, we're back to three columns of citations, and now, none of them spill across the column boundaries. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some new editors have been putting in bare links again. Please don't do that.  Fixing them is a pain. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we call GM Government Moters due to chapter 11 filing?
Should we put into the intro, GM, or General Motors, is also refered to by the news media as "Government Motors" BronxNY (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, a tongue in cheek, recently dubbed nickname doesn't sound like it belongs in the intro. TastyCakes (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it more time. GM might end up like Amtrak, but we're not there yet. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reordering some sections
I'd like to put the "Corporate restructuring" section, which covers the 2006-2008 period, above the 2008-2009 section. They're both timelines, but out of sequence. Some of the history could be reordered, too, to bring it into time sequence. Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Operating Profit is positive?
GM's income statements say that 2008 operating profit was -21 billion, not positive like it says on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.30.56 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to get an exact source for this? The Income Statement for General Motors Corporation at hotStocked.com gives annual gross operating profit to 12/2008 as +8,390 Million dollars. It does give the Total Net Income for the year as -30,860 Million dollars, but I can't find -21 billion anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cadillac and Others Purchase date
The Cadillac page suggests that GM bought Cadillac in 1905, but the GM page suggests 1909. Can someone research/correct one of these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.161.22 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I corrected it - obvious error (correct in GM section of same article) as GM did not exist in 1905. Possible confusion with date of merging with Leland's other company. 99.246.4.248 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hummer
The introduction currently says, "In 2008, 8.35 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the brands Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Opel, Vauxhall, Holden, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Wuling.[6]" Yet a little bit later, a brand named Hummer is mentioned as being up for sale. Why isn't this brand name in the initial list? Kdammers (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to reflect GM emergence from bankruptcy
Since emerging from bankruptcy earlier this morning I'd like to suggest that the following changes be made to reflect entries for the new and old General Motors.

1) The old article General Motors be renamed Motors Liquidation Company which is General Motors Corporation's new name which would provide only historical information about the defunt General Motors Corporation.

2) The General Motors Company LLC. article be redirected to General Motors with a link to For the former General Motors Corporation see Motors Liquidation Company

Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this was covered in above. And I put the name you suggested in what I believe to be the appropriate places. Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This topic is covered above. We don't need any more articles. Motors Liquidation Company is covered as a sub-topic in the General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization article. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That must be new. I see the redirect has been redirected too. Nice. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

New GM and Old GM
The Vehicle Acquisition Holdings article (now officially called "General Motors Company") and this article need major rewriting. Once the rewriting takes place, this article should be named "Motors Liquidation Company" and the article about the new GM should adopt the General Motors Company name. 67.167.133.74 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This was a Chapter 11 reoganization, not a liquidation like we saw with Lehman Bros. GM is still GM, just with a number of 'bad assets' pending sale. The "company" you refer to above is nothing but a shell used to hold good assets as part of a legal maneuver during this reorganization. I, for one, am of the opinion that the above article should simply be merged into this one. — divus 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And the old GM holding unsold real estate, Hummer, and other assets is called "Motors Liquidation Company."
 * -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the quote from the article on the change of name of Old GM from General Motors Corporation to "Motors Liquidation Company." -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find that name "Motors Liquidation Company" in article space. Only that redirected article and this talk page had it. I put it in the General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization article under "Planned sale", though I'm sure it could be worded better. I used the above source, which has some errors. She doesn't go by "MIcheline", does she? I'm sure it's "Micheline". I have to fix that elsewhere. Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also put the name in History of General Motors under "Chapter 11 filing June 2009". Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Qutation

Merge General Motors Company LLC article into this article
It has been proposed that the General Motors Company LLC article be merged into this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the merge. We didn't keep separate articles for Chrysler as part of their reorganization, nor should we here. I gave a more detailed response with more detailed reasons at Talk:General Motors Company LLC.oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with merge. Let's keep this article since it uses the common name General Motors. Lets merge the General Motors Company LLC article into this article. They contain the same information. The separate General Motors Company LLC article is not needed. There is also the History of General Motors and the General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization article which can be used.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the merge. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with merge. Please complete as soon as possible.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, because I once linked to AT&T from several articles, only to discover how poor an article it was. The trouble is that article was about the post-merger SBC. I had to go back and fix my links. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. It would be a huge pain in the ass otherwise. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * agree based on the fact that GM Company is the new GM and should be the main article. If there isto be a splint then the old GM corporation should be seperate article. In closing my rationale is the new GM should be in this article as the new likley search term. 166.137.135.5 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, although let's make sure to have text that describes that the original stock of GM was changed to GMGMQ and that trading halted on July 10th with the newly emerged company having an IPO sometime later. Chadlupkes (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. The other day I expected there to be updated information about the "new" GM on this page, but had to go link-hunting for GM LLC. >.< --Ferrariguy90 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with merge. And have no discussion about it. Txtrooper (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

UCS Report
I fixed the UCS report stuff to be clear. GM was 7th out of the top 8 selling carmakers where 8th is worst. Also the report basically "debunks" the under 30, it can't be used as a reference for that as it states that the "most under 30" is bogus and that GM is counting the coup and hatchback of the same model as separate. Citing this report to source the claim which the report refutes is bad form to say the least. Not against reporting teh claim just misusing the source in this way. Reboot (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro changed to reflect Bankrupty and new GM
I modified the intro to reflect changes caused the the bankruptcy:
 * GM was the leader in global sales for 77 consecutive years (1931 to 2007), longer than any other automaker. It manufactures cars and trucks in 34 countries. GM had employed 244,500 people around the world, and sold and serviced vehicles in some 140 countries.[3] After emerging from bankruptcy GM employs 88,000 U.S. employees and plans to employ approximately 68,000 by the end of 2009.

from
 * GM has led in global sales for 77 consecutive years (1931 to 2007), longer than any other automaker. It manufactures cars and trucks in 34 countries. GM employs 244,500 people around the world, and sells and services vehicles in some 140 countries.

Changes were reverted by ThomasPaine1776 with out reason given. Which do you prefer? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Globally GM 'employs' 244,500 after emerging, GM already updated the number on its website. The reference refers to the U.S. workforce only, and the statement is already covered under recent news which is where it belongs until the employment number changes on GM's webpage, GM's plans may change as it has not offically reduced any U.S. employees, but only announced future plans. If the economy picks up or doesn't, GM's plans many change again. Plans and predictions are not facts an are best under recent news. Also, 'has led' is better grammar, fewer words. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with "has led". That implies GM is still the leader, which it obviously is not. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Has led is past perfect tense, and implies that GM has led in the past. 'Had led' is conditional past and would generally be used to complement when or if. Has led is technically better in this case than had led, however, either can work, and both are better than 'was the leader in'. And for that matter GM is still a leading company on sales as number 2. Some seem to fear that someone might say that GM has accomplished something. GM does seem to scare the competition and arouse jealousy among competitors. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

10% ownership of "New GM" by "Old GM"
We could use a verifiable journalistic citation of the claim that 10% of the New GM is held by the old GM. Does this imply that stockholders of what is now GMGMQ stock owns 10% of the new GM? I've been under the impression that "old GM" stock will be worthless. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * CONFIRMED Motors Liquidation Company (The former General Motors Corporation) owns a 10% stake in the new company, see here http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=84530&p=irol-faq. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The 10% share is for the former stakeholders.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So am I under the impression that those who own 100 shares of "Old GM" will receive 10 shares of "New GM" stock? Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No they won't because GM Company does not have any publicly traded stock, the interested is held as Debtor-in-Possession. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Old GM owns nothing of the new GM, and the stockholders of Old GM should expect nothing as well. Here is the statement of Motors Liquidation Company (formerly General Motors Corporation) on the topic. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Useful Sources:
 * Useful Sources:

Due to the misleading wording about "Old GM" owning 9.8% of "New GM", I've renamed the company in question Motors Liquidation Co. in the infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also added it's the bondholders of Motors Liquidation Company which own the 9.8%. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

General Motors 'was'...
In reference to the first sentence of the article, 'General Motors Corporation was a global automaker'. Since when has General Motors entered into the past tense? The company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and will emerge, as has been quoted in the media, 'in a matter of months' as a more 'competitve company'. I edited the 'was' to 'is', but is has since been changed again, is there any valid reason for doing this? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, it shouldn't be referred to in the past tense. This is only Chapter 11 reorganization.  If a company hits Chapter 7, or is merged out, it can be referred to in the past tense. --John Nagle (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur: Should remain in present tense. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur: Should remain in the present tense.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Nonsense
Please keep the Ron Paul slant OUT of this article. The early 2000 recession was not caused by federal reserve, nor was the stock market decline. Until you can dig up a reputable source (something other that long-debunked Mises economics w/ any empirics), it is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halik007 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add, you can make the argument that it was Fed's loose monetary policy that lead up to the .com speculative bubble. The stock market decline, however, was a correction to the economic reality and not a result of FED tightening. If you're interested in the topic, grab a copy of. It was recommended to me by Paolo Pasquariello

Greenspan admitted his mistakes led to the current crisis and the fedss intention in raising rates was to lower the stock market. Fed tightening in part caused the slow down.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

POV Pushing
I can see throughout the article there is a lot of POV pushing regarding gov bailout funds, unsourced content and other inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibeberish (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the whole article is in need of reorganisation and a change in tone of writing. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide one or more examples? Or better just fix it.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"GM's higher labor costs compared to its competitors, resulting from its union agreements and pension costs, have contributed significantly to its financial problems.[citation needed] " -- This is terribly inaccurate, and is only opinion from conservative thinkers. The CEOs have already said in Congress that wages are *not* the problem as it only accounts for 10% of the industry's cost. (JF)June 01, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.190.121 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that your remark is also quite biased. Even a 1% cost difference can be the life or death of a business in competitive industries. Obviously labor unions will have some impact. I would agree that whether the impact is "significant" or not, is a subjective matter. Perhaps there should be a critique section.

--98.134.54.15 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

wp:lead
wp:lead says the intro should be a concise summary of the article. ThomasPaine is removing things that are unflattering in the intro and asking it to be kept short. I believe the info on how bankruptcy is working should be restored to the intro. What do you think? Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It should at least mention the bankruptcy. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has had major issues with length. GM has emerged from Chapter 11. All the information is covered in the appropriate places and in sub articles. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight and bias
The article is almost completely uncritical and gives undue weight to the company's marketing initiatives. I would like to see balanced coverage restored to the article such as that removed by Thomas Paine from the end of the Company overview section: Nevertheless, General Motors (as well as its American competitors Ford Motor Company and Chrysler Group) are now under great stress and have suffered from high costs, tougher competition from foreign competitors and a decline in the popularity of their most profitable pick-up trucks and sport utility vehicles. General Motors faces continuing pressure to halt its steady slide in market share. Its cost structure, burdened by a strong union which over the years negotiated high wages, healthcare and pension benefits, has taken its toll on the company as foreign competitors have increased production at non-union factories in the United States and Canada.

It is about time that coverage of the causes of GM problems should be included this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Motor Racing
I've removed "Vehicles of most, if not all, of GM's brands have been represented in competition, with perhaps Chevrolet being the most prominent." as Chevrolet is most prominent to whom? For me personally Holden is the most proinent brand and I expect someone in Europe will say something else... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.251.161 (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Recency
This article has an extreme case of the recency effect. Almost everything in the article is about what they're currently doing, or the events of the last couple of years. The history section is a blip. GM was the most important corporation in America for multiple decades. Tempshill (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Government Motors
Yes, yes, some people don't like the bailouts, but I think there is undue weight being placed on GM's ownership status and that pejorative nickname "Government Motors." Some people call Ford "Found On Road Dead" but we wouldn't include that in the article, would we?--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this is not the same as "Found On Road Dead", which is clearly "point of view" and is not a common term used by reliable sources (but could be put in the Ford article way down somewhere under "slang" or "in popular culture" or somewhere). "Government Motors", however is not "point of view" and is used by many reliable sources even in headlines (eg: LA Times, etc. as per the refs which you also removed). "Government Motors" also redirects here, which usually means the term should be bolded. This is an encyclopedia and not a GM advertising brochure -- we have to be honest even if that means actually telling people that GM is owned by the US Treasury, which needs to be in the lead section and not just way down in a factbox or way down in "news".  You have also violated the 3RR rule which says you can't keep reverting other people's well-sourced contributions. As such, I am reverting your change and you can take it to arbitration if you like.Facts707 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it has come into common usage, I myself have never heard it outside of wikipedia, that doesn't mean that it belongs in the lead, and whether it's included has nothing to do with being honest about their financial situation. Bolding can be used for common terms that redirect to the article. Again, I don't see this as a common term. The redirect makes sense, and mentioning "Government Motors" later in the article makes sense. The general financial situation belongs in the lead, but there's no need for the nickname. Not using a recent nickname is in no way being dishonest. Not using a recent nickname doesn't turn this into an advertisement. Please leave your straw man out in the field. --Onorem♠Dil 13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, Wikipedia is not the place to push a certain bias or political viewpoint. The pejorative Government Motors nickname warrants mention in the later parts of the article, but not in the beginning. Are we going to alter the Presidential articles to say Ronald "Teflon President" Reagan or Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton next? I can find sources for those too.--A Second Man in Motion. And it's not a violation of the 3RR rule just because you don't agree with it, please read the rules again. (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article should not use the term government motors.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Canadian ownership
This matter of terminology when referring to the Canadian executives has come up before (i.e. at Ontario Legislative Building) and the result was always that "Government of Canada" is too ambiguous a term; at the article Government of Canada this is explained: "In Canadian English, the word government is used to refer both to the whole set of institutions that govern the country, as well as the current political leadership." In fact, this doesn't go far enough, as the constitution (and hence the courts) also defines "government of Canada" to be the Queen-in-Council. Only the latter has ownership in GM, in both federal and provincial jurisdictions. Why, then, is it better to use confusing and lazy terminology when the accurate term is right there? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "Elizabeth II" to "The Crown", as they are, by Canadian law, synonymous, but the latter de-personalises the term. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea for Chevrolet Logo
I know Chevrolet has used the same logo for many years. I would suggest you use only the outline of the logo in Chrome and not fill in the center. This would make a more state of the art look to compete with other popular logos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.169.76 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 
 * Is this a recommendation for GM as a company or for the graphics on this page?—~

Canadian ownership
This matter of terminology when referring to the Canadian executives has come up before (i.e. at Ontario Legislative Building) and the result was always that "Government of Canada" is too ambiguous a term; at the article Government of Canada this is explained: "In Canadian English, the word government is used to refer both to the whole set of institutions that govern the country, as well as the current political leadership." In fact, this doesn't go far enough, as the constitution (and hence the courts) also defines "government of Canada" to be the Queen-in-Council. Only the latter has ownership in GM, in both federal and provincial jurisdictions. Why, then, is it better to use confusing and lazy terminology when the accurate term is right there? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "Elizabeth II" to "The Crown", as they are, by Canadian law, synonymous, but the latter de-personalises the term. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Management and Board of Directors - do we need to list them all?
See General Motors. The CEO and Chairman of the board are in the company infobox. Do we need all the others, especially the board members, and how much they're paid? I don't see how they're particularly notable, but if they are they should be addressed in other sections (eg: head designer, then vehicle design section). Also $200 K for non GM board members doesn't seem very notable. Facts707 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
"GM has prided its research and prototype development" -- This does not seem like proper English to me.~