Talk:General Motors/Archive 2

UzAvtoSanoat
NOT uzavtosanoa ! http://www.uzavtosanoat.uz/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.246.155 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, updated. UzAvtoSanoat red-linked since no WP entry yet (feel free to create one). Facts707 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

GM management - do we need to list so many?
There is a pageful of GM execs and about a dozen references for them. Some of them don't have a WP article and they're not particularly notable except to GM insiders and car industry watchers. I don't think it's necessary to list so many in an encyclopedia unless they have had a notable (i.e. profound) effect on the company. Usually just the CEO and maybe CFO, president, and COB in the infobox suffices. The founder and anyone else can go in the history or relevant sections based on their major contributions. A link to the company website should be adequate for other mgmt. Facts707 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Saab
Saab is not a defund brand:

It's Trollhattan plant is laboring, all of it's range is being produced.

It's true that a liquidation process as begun, but it's also true that the sale process of the brand continues in parallel.

In the future, it's possible that Saab will be a defunct brand. Or not.

This is the present, and Saab is not a defund brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.77.164 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hummer
I read today (2-25-10) that GM has decided to discontinue Hummer after negotiations with Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd fell apart.112.201.193.73 (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ownership
The ownership part of the infobox reads that the Government of Canada's partial ownership is in fact the Monarchy of Canada. This has been falsely represented in the infobox. The monarchy of Canada has nothing to do with the governments ownership. It needs to be changed. I have tried but an editor with special interests in the monarchy seems to be reverting it back. Po&#39; buster (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The same goes for the Government of Ontario's ownership. The Monarchy in Ontario has absolutely nothing to do with the governments ownership. Po&#39; buster (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What the infobox says has been falsely represented here; it does not say "Monarchy of Canada/Ontario", it says "Crown in Right of Canada/Ontario", the latter being the term used specifically to distinguish the monarch's legal persona from her personal one. As the Crown-in-Council is the actual government in Canada and Ontario, but "government of Canada/Ontario" can mean different things in different contexts, it makes more sense to use the specific rather than non-specific term.
 * Please also try to refrain from making personal digs at editors; focus on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * True the "government" can mean different thing. But the monarch has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ownership. NOTHING. It should direct to the governments articles, not the monarchs. Po&#39; buster (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fine. The word "monarch" isn't mentioned anywhere. Would you prefer if the piped link went to Government of Canada? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again the monarch has nothing to do with the ownership. It should be piped directly to the Government of Canada, and Government of Ontario articles. Po&#39; buster (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then, as the answer to my question is apparently a yes, I'll make the change. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have redirected them to the monarch section of each article. The redirect needs to go straight to the article, not to the monarch. Once again the monarch has NOTHING to do with the ownership. Po&#39; buster (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already explained how the monarchy is related to the corporation's ownership. Endlessly focusing on the monarch and using all-caps does nothing to counter the facts I raised. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the monarchy is related either. Is it the executive branch that legally owns the GM shares? Might it not be more accurate to follow the example of US and use Ministry of Finance (Ontario) and Department of Finance Canada, as (from what I understand) they physically own the government's assets? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here it states that a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, a Crown corporation that "has been effective in the divestiture of corporate interests of the Crown", purchased shares in GM. The Govenror General-in-Council both authorised the purchase by the CDIC of all shares in the subsidiary, 7176384 Canada Inc., and then directed the purchase by the CDIC or one of its subsidiaries of GM stock. There's the relationship of the monarchy to the ownership of GM. However, maybe it's better to just list the CDIC as an owner in the infobox and go into more detail of the purchase in the article. The corporation's annual report for 2009 hasn't been published online yet, but I imagine that it will, when available, have more detailed information on the acquisition of GM shares; they planned (p.10) to receive no additional funds from the Crown to make the procurement. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you going to change the link or ? Stretching the truth and using weasel words to say the monarchy owns it isn't correct. Even a link to the governments page directly would be more accurate than a link to the monarchy's section. Po&#39; buster (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that the Crowns in right of Canada and Ontario are the owners is overly technical and confusing to readers. We may as well change the US government to the People of the US.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the infobox to match the changes 74.198.8.70 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Confusing to readers? Are you aware of just how many meanings the term "government of Canada" has in Canada (and equivalent in Ontario)? The government of Canada in its strictest constitutional form - the Queen-in-Council - is what owns part of GM, not the government of Canada in its wider scope, including the National Battlefields Commission or the clerks at passport offices. I linked to proof of this above.
 * I asked if it was better to link the CDIC, but got no answer. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) The 8-K form refers to "The U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury)" and "the governments of Canada and Ontario". We do not know the names for Canada and Ontario that appear on the share certificates, but nationally it is a subsidiary of the CDIC (possibly a numbered corporation, but not the CIDC itself). I would point out that the Queen-in-Council does not own anything, it is the Queen in right of Canada, etc. I do not mind if the names on the shareholder register are disclosed in the article, but the article should explain the economic reality - that three governments bailed them out. TFD (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair for us to link to something that is not stated by external sources—if the 8-K form says "the governments of Canada and Ontario", we shouldn't use our own opinions to link those somewhere else. If you can find somewhere that specifically states that the company is owned by the monarchy, then link there by all means, but I really can't see any logical reason to support the non-sourced side in this edit war. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The company that actually owns the shares is 7176384 Canada Inc., owned by the CIDC, which is owned by the Queen, and all is managed by she in her council, which is technically the government of Canada.
 * We have four options for the infobox, then, as I see it: "The Queen/Crown in Right of Canada", "the government of Canada", "the Canadian Investment Development Corporation", or "7176384 Canada Inc." I'd be happy with anything but "government of Canada", as the term simply has too many definitions to be clear in such a place that doesn't permit context. In the article body, I suppose all the detail can be explained. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I started a Canada Development Investment Corporation article, in case it's decided to link there. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Piping the link to CDIC would be fine by me; good work on creating that article. Do you know if there is a corresponding entity for the Ontario government? Aside, would you mind putting a hatnote at Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, to which CDIC redirects? -M.Nelson (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the Ontario equivalent. Going to have to do some digging and keep my fingers crossed. Will add CIDC for now. Hatnote has been added to other article. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We should use Government of Canada & Government of Ontario. We don't need to over-do it on the Monarchy stuff. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And what does government of Canada and government of Ontario mean, exactly? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It means use Government of Canada & Government of Ontario. We don't need these ..in right of stuff. When's the last time you've heard this company called Her Majesty's General Motors (for example)? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From Government of Canada: "In Canadian English, the word government is used to refer both to the whole set of institutions that collectively govern the country as well as the reigning monarch, or her viceroy, in her current council." So, without resorting to media catch-phrases, which is it? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Using weasel words to legitimize your point of view isn't appropriate. The Government of Canada encompasses all Crown Corporations and they're dealings. Weasel words to somehow imply that the Queen somehow has anything to do with the partial purchase of GM is both inaccurate and misleading. The Government gave the loans to GM period. The Queen had zero to do with it. Po&#39; buster (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already expressed my opinon, Government of Canada is sufficant. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You expressed your opinion but never answered my question. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Several people have agreed that "Government of" is proper. No one has agreed that "monarchy" is appropriate. Please stop your disruptive edits or you will be reported. Consensus is against your distorted views. 74.198.8.70 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Discounting your now defunct account, your "several" is actually a grand total to three people saying "government of ...." is fine, one of whom has never edited this article. I'll reiterate again: "government of ...." has too many meanings in Canada to impart with clarity how GM is owned. If you have some alternate other than "Crown-in-Right-of-....", I'd be happy to hear it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should reflect what is stated by the vast majority of published media sources, which state government of Canada/Ontario, not monarchy or crown in right. Even if you provide a convincing argument that it should be monarchy, you are not a reliable source, and you are providing original research.  If you can provide links to enough reliable sources that back up your claim, we can discuss it.  --Vossanova o&lt; 17:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No edit I made said "monarchy"; please be accurate. What I put was "Crown in Right of [Place]" or "Queen in Right of [Place]", both of which are alternate expressions for "government of [Place]" (as can be proven by reliable sources), only much more exact in their meaning. "Government of [Place]" is correct, but only in one of its muliple senses, and the article (like lazily written mass media) doesn't specify which. I was aiming to remedy that deficiency. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be an expert on the subject matter, but we still need published sources to back up your claims, otherwise it's original research. Whether the media is "lazy" or not, we need verifiability. --Vossanova o&lt; 17:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at this: the last treaty (1961) between Canada and the U.S. refers to "The Governments of the United States of America and Canada".  The PM, Davie Fulton, and Canada's ambassador to the US signed "for Canada".  Obviously the terms "Government of Canada" or simply "Canada" are recognized under law as parties that may enter into agreements.  TFD (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term has a specific meaning in law; it's defined by the constitution (just one of the sources available, Vossanova). But, in casual parlance, it has more than one meaning. Anyway, as I said in the edit summary that accompanied my revert of myself, the matter is bigger than just this page and will have to be worked out elsewhere. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have skimmed though not fully read this section and want to point out that we seem to be at about that point where an arcane discussion like this spills over from tangentially relevant to excessively digressive and even disruptive. I hope after two months that both sides would acknowledge that it should not be decided between two or three editors at the talk page for General Motors what to term the government(s) of Canada. I doubt the Queen of England was consulted on the GM deal, so my uneducated but rational guess would be that any flowery language that might mention her in connection to such emergency economic actions of the Canadian government is overly formal, primarily ceremonial, and inessential to the point that GM has received the assistance of more than one government. Some things, even if/when true, are simply not relevant to note once you get as far removed from the primary article as we are here. I don't believe we've seen a reference that any reliable source addresses this deal in terms of the Queen, and to extrapolate that Wikipedia should buck that trend to introduce her here seems against both Wikipedia policy for sourcing and against common sense. If I am wrong or contrary to the spirit of the truth as can be illustrated by some sort of legitimate source, please take the discussion to a forum wherein those more involved with affairs of state and state terminology may cite and review WP:Reliable sources and Wiki policies to prove that, as such consensus would surely require some corrective editorial work beyond General Motors. Abrazame (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you see no sources relating to the Queen, then you perhaps should've done more than skim before commenting. There's no Queen of England, by the way. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clicking on your first link, a story about the CDIC representative's election to GM's board (not the point in this article), the Crown is not mentioned in the first paragraph, nor the second or third, but in the fourth. It is an aside, a nonessential point in a Canadian press article about a secondary aspect of the deal, much less this article on the entire history of the General Motors corporation.  In fact, when that article you cite in support of your point covers the aspect of the deal actually addressed in this article (and prior to the Crown thing), it reads:
 * "On June 1, 2009, the Government of Canada and the Ontario government announced financing totalling US$9.5 billion in support of GM's restructuring efforts.
 * As part of the agreement, the federal and provincial governments secured a combined 11.7 per cent interest and preferred shares in a restructured GM Corporation. These positions are being held by a wholly-owned subsidiary of CDIC."
 * As others above have asserted, there is no florid Queen-and-Crown phraseology in the direct initial phraseology in reporting of facts by Canadians. I then clicked on your second link, by and about the CIDC, to find the Crown not mentioned until the third page.  Relevant to Canada or the CIDC, I'll grant you it is a tertiary point they remember to add after getting the introductory stuff out of the way.  For the mention in this article, we're just going for the introductory stuff.  There is no practical significance to introducing the concept of the crown at such an article.  It's an abstract and purely academic concept with no illumination on issues not directly examining the Canadian system of government.


 * My "Queen of England" was a sardonic quip and not an attempt to formally address HRH, who is indeed colloquially known as such.


 * If a determination were to be made that the Canadian government should and henceforth will be so addressed in only tangentially related articles at Wikipedia that merely mention the name, the talk page for General Motors is not the place to argue for or reach that consensus, something with which I'm pleased to see you already agree. Abrazame (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Logo Change
As recent as April 21, 2010 General Motors Company has revised its logo. For citation visit the following link. http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/quietly-gm-changes-its-logo-91176/. My purpose in this is inform and suggest the necessary changes that I am unable to make since I am an unconfirmed user. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazel91 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

European operation ownership reduced?
"GM received loans from European governments in 2009, and has reduced its ownership stake in European operations as part of its reorganization." (under Company overview) Looks like it need update.North wiki (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Sales
U.S. sales information upto April 2010: As Saab was sold at the end of Feb., shouldn't the first two months' sales of Saab be considered as part of G.M.'s sales?North wiki (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bailouts
This section doesn't belong here. It should be moved to General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization. Recent events are not inherently the most important information about a company, see WP:RECENTISM. --Vossanova o&lt; 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Someone needs to move it. Bill Heller (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll do it. I'll leave it unedited. --Vossanova o&lt; 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Disney
Is it worth mentioning the rides (such as Test Track) at the DIsney parks that GM have sponsored? For that matter, is it worth mentioning Michael Moore in any way?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael Moore is already noted in a section at the bottom, "Books and films", that links to an article on the film. Do you have any references or a photo for the Disney park rides?  This may be more suited for History of General Motors (any other editors want to weigh in on this?), but perhaps a sentence or two could begin a separate headed section on sponsorships below the "Philanthropy" or "Spin-offs" sections.  For example, there used to be a golf tournament that was sponsored by Buick; Cheryl Ladd hosted for a few years sometime in the past dozen or so.  Abrazame (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Expelling the Canadian Diplomat...wait, that's Dodge
In the Discontinued Brands section, the Canadian Envoy links to Vauxhall Victor, which is a model and not a brand. That article reads:


 * "In Canada, it was marketed as both the Vauxhall Victor (sold through Pontiac/Buick dealerships) and the "Envoy" (marketed through Chevrolet/Oldsmobile dealers)."

This is all way before my time: if I'm in error in removing it from this list, please correct the Vauxhall Victor article and revert my edit here. Abrazame (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, having just done the edit, now I'm pondering whether you can technically have a model without a brand. For example, it says it was "marketed through Chevy/Olds dealers", yet it doesn't say it was marketed as a Chevy or an Olds.  If it wasn't a Chevy, or an Olds, and it wasn't (in Canada, at least) a Vauxhall, either, then I guess what was merely a model in the UK may well have been marketed as a brand unto itself in Canada.  If so, that distinction should be more clearly made at Vauxhall Victor.  (Or is this phenomenon perhaps more common than I think?  Any refs for other instances of such?)  I'm uncomfortable about making this edit if I'm incorrect, so I'm going to revert my deletion, but consider this to remain an open question at this page for someone else interested or familiar to weigh in on.  Abrazame (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

third parograph
should Holden and GM Daewoo be mentioned in the third paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.92.237 (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Management
Greetings all, Under Section 1.2 regarding Management, the space for Vice Chairman of Global Product Operations currently links to the wiki page for Thomas, which should read as Thomas G. Stephens, per the correct citation. Also, how would the community feel if entries were created for Stephens as well as Timothy E. Lee and David N. Reilly based on the current cited biographies so this section of the entry contains no links to non-existant pages? GMArchivist (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Stock Investment
Should this item be part of the GM article?

- Anyone who purchased GM stock in the past 50 years and held the stock would be losing money on GM stock. tuco_bad 15:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Really?
Nothing about how the Unions brought down GM? NPOV, yes! Very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.164 (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Who edited the page???
Why is the logo changed? Really! The Square blue logo is still their logo!!! Keep it up there. And the U.S. Government is not the only owner of GM! Change this page back to what it use to look like!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikidockd (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Recent Public Offering
GM stocks were offered and according to the NY Times, the government halved its share in GM. -- An d Re w 03:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Discussion is needed about what do do in this situation. Please contribute! The most recent page I could find that is clearly free of a systematic sequence of copyright violations and major destructive edits is 11:38, 13 November 2010. These edits were responsible for rewriting the article as a non-NPOV advertisement and eliminated substantial content. Reverting to 11:38, 13 November 2010 will destroy all constructive edits from the last two weeks. I personally feel that this is the most expedient way of eliminating the copyright violation and restoring the article. I and others can then proceed to merge more recent constructive edits with the copyvio-free source.

The following pertains only to specific sections that have been removed, and does not address the full extent of copyright violation in the article. byronshock (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Material was copied from: http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.emb.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Mar/10NYAS/chevrolet/0328_cruze_wtcc http://www.corvetteracing.com/2010-overview.shtml. The identified infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. byronshock (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC) byronshock


 * I agree. Take for example, the introduction. That in itself is a copy-and-paste from . It's quite disturbing actually.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 12:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Someone changed the owners of GM to "US Government." The article used to list proper ownership fractions. Does anyone know what the new ownership division is, post-IPO? Andrew76 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The NY Times reported "about 29 percent" government ownership of shares: See this article.

Introduction
"GM employs 205,000 people in every major region of the world"

Do they employ 205,000 people in every major region of the world OR does GM employ 205,000 people and they are in every region of the world? If they do not have 205,000 employees in every major region of the world then the grammar needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.234.65 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a good question. It seems a large portion of the intro has been copied and pasted from GM's website.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 21:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

PR hype?
I feel that this article is way too pro GM. There isn't a criticism section for the article? No mention of why bankruptcy happened? I have a feeling that a GM employee has been writing/editing this article in an attempt to entice buyers of cars/stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyynym25 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is detail of the 2009 bankruptcy at General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization. Likewise, there is a Criticisms section in History of General Motors.  I believe the "environmental commitment" section is PR hype, but otherwise it's a fair/neutral article.   --Vossanova o&lt; 17:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate the article so it can be checked for neutrality, based on my previous comments Nyynym25 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Nyynym25

Part of "Racing Heritage" is almost verbatim from http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.emb.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Mar/10NYAS/chevrolet/0328_cruze_wtcc. I am going to delete and tag as appropriate. byronshock (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that there was a full article rewrite on the 13th which added so much POV/copyrighted text. It does seem like a IPO plug, in retrospect. Best to revert and start fresh. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Header and Graph info doesn't match about China
Hi. The opening paragraph states, "General Motors' largest national market is the People's Republic of China, followed by the United States..." Yet in your graph under market share it clearly lists the US as the largest market in both number of cars (2,981 thousands versus China's 1,095, or more than double sales in US) and in market share too. What's the big idea, guys? 124.87.99.6 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct, the US does indeed have the larger market, while the PRC does not. I believe somebody added a citation tag to the PRC market share.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GM's sales in China overtook its sales in the U.S. in 2009 2010[Correction ---Now wiki (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)]. Please note that data in the sales table is of year 2008. Since the current 'GM' is a new company that did not start operating until July 2009, GM has not released sales information by market similar to that of previous years.-Now wiki (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, the table is as of 2008. Do we have any refs in the article to say that sales in the PRC overtook US sales in 2009? -- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 12:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops. It should be 2010: GM's sales in China overtook its sales in the U.S. in 2010. ---Now wiki (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Some documentation for GM's yearly Chinese sales exceeding those in the US in 2010: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-autos-gm-20110125,0,5849923.story "General Motors Co. sold more vehicles in China than it did in the U.S. last year [2010], [2,351,610  vs. 2,215, 227.]  ‘This is the wave of the future,’ said George Magliano, an economist at IHS Automotive.  'The Chinese market is going to grow faster than the U.S., and it will continue to be this way.' " 173.210.125.42 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cazel1991 removing sourced info
Why was a new editor user:Cazel1991 allowed to rip the article apart? Gumbogumby (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look to me like they ripped the article apart. Yes, they need not removed a large portion of the article without explanation. The best thing to do would be to discuss it with them. The edits can be easily reverted. -- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They need to be reverted, and soon. The new article has loads of copyvio material from GM's website. I've never done such a major reversion.  Can you help? (I want to keep constructive edits, which I think is a piece-by-piece job.  I also want to follow the right procedures since it's potentially disruptive. byronshock (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with a full revert to November 13, but we will want to re-add info on the IPO and any resulting corporate changes. But it's safe to start with a revert then dig through the recent revisions for new useful info. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article as it existed prior to this editor's work was not necessarily something to be adhered to the letter, but I agree that the work this editor added seems to have been taken from promotional materials and it is inappropriate as it stands. That material is not necessarily inappropriate in general (for example, the "environmental principles" are not unlike noting or quoting a politician's campaign platform, both a statement of intent and a gauge to see how closely they comply with their own ideals), but it would need to be placed into that context, and cited, and properly styled.


 * I would support the revert if editors reinsert any subsequent improvements, including those by the editor in question; alternatively, an editor might open the two versions side by side and cut-and-paste those passages and sections from the pre-11/13 version that benefit the article, with edits to those sections to bring the data up to date and to whittle down some of the POV and overstatement and recentism of the restructuring/loan episode. Abrazame (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Founding Date
A thought on the founding date in the header of the article. It lists 1908 as the founding year. However, the current company that is called "General Motors" was not founded in 1908. The 1908 date should move to "Motors Liquidation Corporation" article and the new GM's founding year should be added to this article.136.181.195.33 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article pertains to GM throughout their history as the original and new company. The founding date should be consistent with the history mentioned in the article. --Vossanova o&lt; 20:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of bankruptcy
Someone keeps trying to remove any direct mention of the fact that GM went bankrupt. That's a bit much. --John Nagle (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * tried this again. --John Nagle (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be removed but neither should it be fully half of the two-paragraph lead, which is both WP:Recentism and WP:Undue weight. That paragraph represents a few months in a 102-year history, and gives no context relative to, for example, the global recession, or the government favors received therein (or for that matter throughout the past many decades) by other automakers here and abroad.  (I am not the editor who removed the section.)  Abrazame (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a duplicate sentence in there. Tightened up the text a bit.  --John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Logo
I noticed that it still uses the blue "GM" logo on this page, but GM has pretty much discontinued that logo, now it is just "General Motors" in white Ariel font. Can you change it to the current logo? 75.118.250.122 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GM still uses the blue "GM" logo. See http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/photos.brand_gm.html/GM/EN/Photos/logos . --Vossanova o&lt; 18:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick Note.
General Motors is not called "General Motors Company", it's just "General Motors". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.202.112 (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the legal name of the company is General Motors Company, just like Ford is Ford Motor Company and Chrysler is Chrysler Group LLC. –Helmandsare (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Foundation, name
To keep this article accurate, General Motors Corporation, founded in 1908, changed its name to Motors Liquidation Company, and still exists. This company is the subject of this article. Another company of unknown founding, NGMCO Incorporated, purchased its assets in July 2009. After GM Corp. changed its name, NGMCO changed its name to General Motors LLC. It is this company, originally founded as NGMCO, which is the predecessor to todays GM. The companies it bought assets of, GM included but not exclusively, does not mean it takes their founding dates. The founding date of this NGMCO Inc. should be ascertained, and placed along side the 1908 number in the InfoBox. Int21h (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not actually the way it works. MTLQQ is not General Motors, it is a debt holding company, and its history is found at Motors Liquidation Company.  The underlying business — even with all the major changes — was and still is known as General Motors.  This isn't some later revival of a defunct make by an unrelated company, it is a continuation of the performing assets of GM.  The technicalities of these details are so arcane that they are not helpful to an understanding of what General Motors is or has been.  And to say it is of "unknown founding" — U.S. automaker troubles and the fates of GM and Chrysler was one of (admittedly many) major stories of the great recession of 2008-2009; arguably not as much as the recovery of the U.S. automakers is one of the significant stories of 2010-2011.  We have a section here on the reorganization and provide a link there to General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization; that is the appropriate place to cover this sort of high-focus detail.


 * I undid your disabling of automatic archiving. Threads remain 59 days and then archive only once there are more than 6 threads here (meaning this will probably be here for a year or more anyway).  Abrazame (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiding the truth
I find the ordering of the contents, as well as the omission of past controversies, paints a biased picture in favour of General Motors. I assume they have hired staff to monitor this page to avoid bad press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.59.146 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Although COI editing does happen on Wikipedia, the Wikipedian community generally does a pretty good job of noticing it and reverting it—a better job than one might expect. The person who reverted your recent addition of the 2 wikilinks was most probably not a paid lackey of GM, but rather just an individual Wikipedian with a watchlist and a low tolerance for recent edits that aren't quite done perfectly. Watchlisters can lose patience over time, as they recurringly have to remove vandalism, poorly done edits, etc. What happened was that your link addition happened in the wrong place. The "Articles" subhead in the refs section isn't for cross-references to other Wikipedia articles that you want to direct readers to (although that's a reasonable assumption if you're new to Wikipedia); what it's actually for is sources being cited as references in this article, such as academic journal articles, magazine articles, and newspaper articles. There are some accepted ways of adding criticism to an article—generally either weaving it into the text (which requires some effort at writing and revising and referencing, which [effort] is more than many editors are willing to do), or concentrating it in a "Criticism" section of the article. The latter is tough to get by the quality standards of some Wikipedians, because it has been abused over the years, so they have a low opinion of it in general. (See WP:Criticism for how to do it right, so that it can pass muster quality-wise.) It has sometimes been used as sort of a "lazy man's way" to paste some tinfoil-hat fringe stuff, or even just angrily biased stuff, into an article. (The "See also" sections also get policed [by independent Wikipedians, not corporate lackeys] against laziness or bias in that respect.) That being said, it's pretty widely accepted (except by apologists or ideologues) that the Great American streetcar scandal did in fact involve collusion to dominate markets, and the content of Who Killed the Electric Car? is mostly accurate. So you're right that it's appropriate to mention them in this article. I may try to look over the article and incorporate a mention of each, with link, if it's not there already. Feel free to beat me to it. I can help polish any earnest effort that you make. PS: Check out the existing "Criticism" section at History of General Motors > Criticism for an example of what has already been done (and what might still be improved). Regards, — ¾-10 03:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on Name at the time of founding
Just a small clarification: GM was founded as General Motors Company in 1908, and was incorporated as General Motors Corporation in 1916, post its merger with Chevrolet.

Not wanting to clutter the lead with such details, I think its best to not mention all thisAJ-India (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ranking
While it is pretty clear that GM will finish the year as the world's largest automaker, they year is not over yet. I have fixed the intro and added a "Rankings" section that explains what is going on. Rankings are established ONCE PER YEAR, and not at halftime. Official rankings are declared by OICA, not by a blog or a newspaper. Please DO NOT EDIT this unless new official rankings are announced. This edit reflects rankings announced in early August 2011. I will add a similar section at the other contenders. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does this mean?
"The company has moved from a corporate-endorsed hybrid brand architecture structure, where GM underpinned every brand to a multiple brand corporate invisible brand architecture structure.[77]"

It would be great if someone familiar with this particular variety of jargon could translate it into everyday English for the average reader. --Jfruh (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right that it would be nice if it were worded more clearly for all of us non-marketing and non-advertising types. I'm confident that what they mean is that GM no longer wants people to think of the divisional brands (Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet, et al) as "subsets of GM" on the surface of their consciousness. GM now wants each of those brands to stand alone to a fair extent in the mind of the customer—not that the corporate parent will be a "secret", but just that it won't be mentioned prominently. This makes sense as a correction from the brand architecture of the 1980s and 1990s, when much of the public viewed the divisional brands as just "the same crap with a different badge slapped on it". From a business management and branding perspective, GM has been offering an interesting, evolving case study for an entire century in the balancing act of "decentralization with coordinated control" (as Alfred P. Sloan and others have put it). In other words, what is the optimal brand architecture for such a large corporation? What balance between unitary identity (a central self with subordinate branches) on one hand and a family of strongly independent-seeming brands beneath the parent's umbrella, on the other hand. This is interesting, too, because it echoes the perennial challenge inherent in federalism—getting the balance right between central-government authority and states' rights. Whether in government or business, the common theme is one of coordinating the parts of an organization made up of smaller organizations that are not truly independent because they share some back end in various respects. How hard do you try to minimize or maximize the true, functional commonality of that back end? And, as a separate question, how much do you try to hide that shared-services back end from the customers (e.g., make it large in actuality but small in appearance)? An interesting set of themes with endless variations. — ¾-10 02:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have spent my whole professional life in that trade and worked on branding strategies for a - cough - very large German manufacturer. I had to read that sentence three times until I thought I would have a feeling of what the sentence possibly may want to say. And I am quite familiar with the jargon. Basically it comes down to buying a Chevrolet knowing that is a GM product and buying a Chevrolet knowing that it is a Chevrolet. The sentence needs to go. I'd even kill it in a branding strategy. What's worse, GM is not even mentioned in the reference. Smells like linkspam. BsBsBs (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Motors Liquidation Company not even mentioned?
I realize this has probably been discussed at length, and the many Defenders of the Article had their reasons for rejecting it (as seen above), but I still found it highly disturbing that there was absolutely no direct mention or link whatsoever in this GM article to the formation and spin-off (or whatever) under GM's Bankruptcy of Motors Liquidation Company, or "The Old GM" as it is commonly referred to in the media. I came to the GM page specifically looking for a casual link to MLC, having forgotten the exact name of it and wanting more info. I know we want to keep things tidy here, but in the short "Chapter 11 reorganization" (Bankruptcy) section should at least mention the "Old GM" assets, and provide a w-link to it. In fact, I wonder if some sort of "also" or "not to be confused with" template is needed at the top, and then a link at the "see also" section at the end. Being somewhat bold I've done the latter, but I am really not in the mood to draw down wrathful lectures about POV, from the "pro-GM" crowd, bless their dedicated and fervent hearts. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality, or lack thereof
I understand this has been brought up multiple times in the past, but I cannot seem to find a clear-cut answer as to why this article cannot be tagged as "Neutrality Disputed." I do not edit often (I usually just do grammar/syntax), but I am a well read and intelligent person, and I would like to believe that I am able to distinguish a neutral article from one that contains obvious bias. This article is written like a letter to a potential GM investor. For example:
 * "As part of the company's advertising, Ed Whitacre announced the company's 60-day money-back guarantee and repayment of $6.7 billion loan from government ahead of schedule."

How is including Mr. Whitacre's announcement of their money-back guarantee at all relevant to the corporate governance or his stepping down from his position? There are two potential reasons I believe this was included: one is that it was part of the same sentence in the article, and another is that the article editor felt it necessary to include some advertising in line with something actually relevant. I would very much like to verify the source on this, but conveniently, it comes from a subscriber-only article on the Wall Street Journal.

Another issue under the same Corporate Governance heading is the Financial Results section. Quite conveniently, the only results discussed are those from the years following GM's government buyout, starting with the first year they saw an upturn in vehicle sales. If there is to be a section discussing GM's finances, why not include a slightly bigger picture (without detailing the entire buyout, Chapter 11 reorganization, etc., as there is a separate article for that) including years leading up to the company's bankruptcy? Alternatively, why even include this section if there is an entire article on the Chapter 11 reorganization? Ultimately, I believe the best solution would be to expand this section to include a detailed history of GM's financial results and relocate it to the History of General Motors article.

The final issue I'll address is the (again, previously brought up) lack of a "Criticisms" section. If an "Environmental Initiatives" section is considered to be fair game for this article, then a general "Criticisms" section should be as well. Instead, we find the pro-GM environmental initiatives on the main General Motors article, and the company's criticisms on another arguably less-prominent article. Again, I feel a logical solution for this would be to either relocate the Environmental Initiatives section to the History of General Motors article, or conversely, relocate the Criticisms section to the General Motors article.

I have changed one line in this article, and I'm not sure if it was due to bias or poor editing, but the sentence under the heading North America in the World Presence section stated that the buyout enabled GM to "continue to build high-quality, safe, and fuel-efficient vehicles," when in reality, this is a quote from a speech President Barack Obama gave concerning the General Motors reorganization. It is a totally subjective and opinionated statement, and its source (Dept. of Energy website) makes no effort disguise it as anything other than that, so I am inclined to believe that the editor blatantly attempted to pass it off as a "fact."

I find it hard to believe that this article is not tagged with disputed neutrality, especially with this being an article on the world's largest automaker and one of the (if not the) largest corporations in the United States. Input on this would be greatly appreciated.  Illini407  talk 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

they have to be better at design
and quality of cars, especially opel/wauxhall brands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.147.212 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange effects with table in General Motors
There is no line between the last and before-last rows of the first table in that section -- at least I can't see it on my PC. But when I edit the article, and then SHOW PREVIEW, then this line is shown. After returning back to normal view, either by SAVE PAGE or CANCEL, that line vanishes again. Do others see the same problem? How to solve it? --L.Willms (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem was solved by a change on my PC. --L.Willms (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

North American Operations, post restructuring

 * Indented line

The restructuring of GM has allowed the company to continue to produce high-quality, safe, and fuel-efficient cars.[2]

Subjective opinion about the state of the operations, working to improve, 1st offline, then posted back here. Richard416282 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and polished that up as I didn't see an edit by you in the page history.  Illini407  talk 17:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada??
Why General Motors is included in the "WikiProject Canada"? the company is American, not Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * General Motors is culturally as important in Canada as it is in the U.S. It has plenty of sales and manufacturing in both countries. Perhaps since the General Motors Canada article is in WikiProject Canada, the General Motors article need not be. That would be fine in terms of parent company-vs-subsidiary logic. But to answer your question of why someone added the General Motors article to WikiProject Canada, it is only natural, because they were probably thinking in terms of the brand, rather than the corporate-entity logic. The brand presence is worldwide, and isn't marketed based on corporate-entity distinctions. — ¾-10 20:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Cars the only cited products
How did it happen that cars are the only cited GM products? Just making a quick search I found these other GM product vehicles: And these others, GM products until the early 2000s:
 * vans
 * trucks
 * SUVs
 * buses
 * locomotives

The above items should be added to the article.Dogru144 (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead section tagging
The tagging of the lead section for relevance seems to me to be unjustified, and a question on the help desk has raised concerns about the reason why this may have been done. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how the supposed issue might be addressed, or any objections to removing the tag? - Ka renjc 10:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just remove the tag - I don't think it requires a TP discussion.--ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to, and thanks for the added confirmation that it shouldn't have been there. - Ka renjc 20:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Inappropriate comment
 * action=collapse
 * reason=See WP:NOT
 * comment=

General Motors Company
General Motors Company !

General ! I am here you got it from outside of the USA how to look like the cars outside and inside must be in quality including the colours and look at the Opel Insignia to do like the Cars and the Car Of The Year USA 2013: what i want is no GMC sign on the cars that is a mistake and no discribings like numbers and other signs only Metalic: and: a project: GENERAL : writing like you see here: you know the meaning of GENERAL : and the other all cars without GENERAL and GMC : GMC: is a discribing you know it from the school and College that is a mistakes : clean the cars: and oe project: GENERAL: and General Motors Company needs a sign like: the car of the year USA: and Sport Cars: i take six Cars you got it from all companies and 65 % + 45 % + 10 % + 85 % every year or 45 % and three from your Car groups look what is available for GMC every year 85 % or three from your groups and from all your groups 65 % : three cars for my wife i will marry here USA : three sport cars: like Hummer H2 Sports Turbo : Turbo Selection TS 13: 13 is for 2013: and this cars no signs and no numbers and three cars like Hummer H2 Sports: like: Corvette to put in the BMW Z4 3.0 i: like and like: Nissan the Sports Car looks like BMW Z4 3.0 i: looks like Corvette Sports: and the Hummer H2 looks like too Corvette and all cars look like an: EAGLE: you can do it like: Scorpion: like Scorpion: the cars and look like the Corvette SPorts all three cars: this are the different projects for my wife and Toyota is doing the Eagle for my wife and this are the first three cars: a lot of Hummer H2 look like a Puzzle that is not available clean the cars: and a Laptop inside and GPS and all modern and Electric, Gas, Sun energy all in three and the cars are to expensive you can the BMW ... for 21.000 Dollars if no sale do it for 18.000 Dollars you have to look what is importent to sale the cars and to in one you can do Gas and electric for 49.000 Dollars  if the cars are 68.000 Dollars or 85.000 Dollars two cars you are sale if the cars are 49.000 Dollars five cars five customers you win: 245.000 Dollars by two Cars for 85.000 DOllars=170.000 Dollars you win 245.000-170.000 Dollars 75.000 DOllars you win ?: you have to look not to expensive the cars and the Opel Insignia you can do it for as project 44.000 Dollars to look you can win costomers or not and all Cars : are the Cars expensive the Customers going to other Companies where they can get cheaper Cars: and ask the Customers for their wishes what do they want to give out for a Car do it right: the three projects are for my wife she will be: and look at the Hummer H2 Wheels there are to much hole to the Metalic and Gold around the holes inside and outside too do it right there are only one life: Truck Hummer H2 Sports: as Energy back Porsche: do what you like but do it right: GMC must to away from the Cars that look terrible: General: project: and all Cars new Cars without all discribings and numbers: and a Handy in the Cars and 13 touch screen Pens to write 39 TOuch Screen Pens: that is for you GMC i am here there is so much to do: 65 % or 35 Billon DOllars + 45 % and and and you got it all what to do i am here so much to do in the USA ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.21.2 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC) }}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewer (talk • contribs)

Wordless reverts
User:Tokyogirl79 wordlessly reverted an edit by User:Kareem179 regarding the pension transfer. Even cases of clear vandalism deserve at least an edit note. After looking at the edit, I would say that it might not have been in the totally proper place (I would have put it under Chapter11,) and that the sources could be better (I found many, WSJ, Fortune, the wire services.) However, a $29 billion transaction definitely is notable. The uncovered pension fund was at the heart of the bankruptcy matter, and it should warrant a bit more reflection. I suggest that the editors restore, improve, and amplify the edit a bit. BsBsBs (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I used the rollback function because he fell under the "spammer" guidelines, as he had made several similar edits to various other pages where he was trying to insert his own website into various articles, as well as create an article for his website. Rollback doesn't allow for edit notes. I wish they did. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood. I didn't check his/her other edits. This here looked pertinent, if with the caveats above. I know what you mean about Rollback ... Ja ne! BsBsBs (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be worth one of us bringing up a concern on the talk page for rollbacks. I might do that myself later on tonight since rollbacking has some serious flaws to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Douzo. I'll rollback you up!BsBsBs (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewer (talk • contribs)

Verification Issue
The following assertion is made in the "History" section:

"Along the way, a failure to obtain government loans caused GM to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2009, following the recession of 2008, 2009."

I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, but certainly there were far more reasons for GM's Chapter 11 in 2009 than just failure to obtain Government loans. This simply can't be true. GM needed the loans because it did not have enough cash from operations or adequate capital to sustain itself. So, it wasn't the lack of loans that led to the bankruptcy; it was the performance of the company. This section should be revised with verified information related to the following:

1) Management performance 2) Sales of new vehicles relative to the marketplace 3) Political issues (regulations/lack thereof) 4) Union / labor issues 5) Tax issues 6) International trade / performance

This is my own editorializing, but usually a company's poor performance is due to management performance. Referring to scholarly work on the performance of GM management pre and post bankruptcy would probably be valuable (if such scholarly work exists).

BeatArmy89 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)BeatArmy89 May 24, 2013


 * I had the same reaction when I read that. Was this section written by GM's PR department? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

General Motors ignition switch problem
Any plans to include this in the article? Based on the level of media coverage received and the high profile congressional and NHSTA investigations this would seem warranted. 108.172.112.92 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, WHY is this not in this article. This is huge and needs to be added to the article.Mikeawilson3 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup
Cleaned-up the intro a bit:


 * As for the brands, I went by http://www.gm.com/company/aboutGM/our_company.html.
 * "Brands" not in this list were removed. Please keep "Brands" and "name plates" apart. For instance, an Alpheon is a name plate, not a brand.
 * Note that a company can "own" many brands, what matters is what brands it actively uses.
 * The term "segment" has a special meaning in the industry. GM calls its business units "segments", I named them "business segments" to avoid confusion.

Some information in the last third should go below. BsBsBs (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * “GM owns (per 31 December 2011) 77.0% of its joint venture in South Korea, GM Korea.[4]:p.96” moved to Asia.
 * “among them Shanghai GM and SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile” and “First Automotive Works and General Motors formed a joint-venture called FAW-GM focusing on commercial vehicles in China” deleted, both covered in Asia.
 * “In 2012 PSA Peugeot Citroen and General Motors formed an alliance, which involved General Motors acquiring seven percent of PSA Group.” moved to Europe. Note no ref in this section.
 * OK?
 * Where should OnStar go?
 * In Asia, is Wuling a marquee or a brand?
 * Thanks Sammy D III (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thank you for doing the work. "Wuling" is a brand of cars made by the SAIC-GM-Wuling joint venture, which also makes the Baojun branded cars. BsBsBs (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just little stuff, like the two "brands". Thanks right back at ya.Sammy D III (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

predecessor
Could someone clarify the information in the infobox? It is illogical for a company that was founded in 1908 to have a predecessor that existed from 1908 to 2009. Nyth83 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

GM Communications’ Wikipedia Account
Greetings! This account (GMCommunications) is run by General Motors Communication staff and one of GM’s agencies, FleishmanHillard. Our goal with this account is to assist the community with information and any questions that you may have about GM and provide links to primary and third-party sources that may help answer those questions here or at the Reference Desk.

In the spirit of full transparency, we posted this message to the Talk page as a standalone post to ensure it is seen by as many users as possible.

We will be tagging anything we post on this Talk page with an abbreviated disclaimer announcing the account’s GM and agency affiliation. We will not be making any direct edits to any Wikipedia page through this or any other account and look forward to discussing any proposed edits with the community.

We hope to become a resource for information and look forward to collaborating with the community.

GMcommunications (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Caroline, GM Community Manager, August 26, 2014

2014 Employment Figures
Noticed this page had employment figures from 2012. Updated employment figures for the year 2014 can be found here: http://www.gm.com/company/aboutGM/our_company.html. The new number is 212,000.

PLEASE NOTE: This account is managed by GM and their agency, FleishmanHillard.

GMcommunications (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Caroline, GM Community Manager
 * ✅ GoingBatty (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Corporate Governance Updates
Thank you again for adding in the updates for the 2014 employee figures. After additional observation, we noticed some of our Corporate Officers under the Corporate Governance section are out of date. Below I have include some proposed content to update this section with the correct Officers.

In addition, we also noticed that company president Dan Ammann (http://www.gm.com/company/corporate-officers/daniel-ammann) does not have his own page and when searched on Google, his photo is associated with a Swiss journalist with the same name. Do you have any suggestions or best practices on how to start a discussion about creating his own page?

Proposed Content [Under Corporate Governance section]

The following names and/or titles could be updated as:

UPDATE: Dr. Karl-Thomas Neuman's title to - GM Executive Vice President and President, GM Europe

REPLACE: Timothy E. Lee with Stefan Jacoby - Executive Vice President Consolidated International Operations

REPLACE: Melissa Howell with John J. Quattrone - Senior Vice President, GM Global Human Resources

REPLACE: Selim Bingol with Tony Cervone - Senior Vice President, Global Communications

Source: http://www.gm.com/company/corporate-officers Pete at GM (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

General Updates
GM in China In the “Asia” section of the page, I noticed the number of GM vehicles sold in China is not current and references figures from 2010. Included below are updated numbers for 2014 from GM and third-party sources below. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2015/01/14/gm-record-sales-chevy-sales-fall/21767247/ http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/Jan/0114-gm-2014-global-sales.html198.208.159.19 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Proposed Content [under “Asia” subsection of “World Presence” section] “Deliveries in China rose 12 percent to a record 3,539,972 in 2014 and the company’s estimated market share increased 0.6 percentage points to 14.8 percent.”198.208.159.19 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Article uses metres and kilometres for a US car manufacturer.
This is a article for a United States based car manufacturer so I think it should use American English, not British English.Doorknob747 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should show both for measurements, if I understand your statement correctly. For example, both miles and kilometers should be shown, but miles should be shown first for an American manufacturer (the reverse for a European one.) Is there a specific example of where only meters or kilometers are used? A conversion template may be needed there. Bahooka (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the suggestions. We see on the General Motors page under the “Controversies” section litres and kilometers are represented, but gallons and miles aren’t. I have included the conversion in the suggested content below as well as a conversion chart for each.


 * Proposed Content:
 * [under “Controversies” section]
 * Consumer Reports performed independent tests on the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze, showing that the 1.4 litre engine used the equivalent of 2.4 gallons (9.05 liters) of gas per 62 miles (100 kilometers) in combined city/highway tests, which is one third more than the combined city/highway results that GM Canada claims.


 * Sources: Metric Conversions - Liters; Metric Conversions - Kilometers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete at GM (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. With convert template. However the original source used metric so metric remains quoted first. Rmhermen (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken Citations
Hi all! Citation 29 leads to a different website than the one listed and citation 30 leads to a 404 page. Where are these supposed to actually go? Tiptop9227 (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. It looks like the names of some executives at General Motors were updated but the references weren't changed, and in the meantime, GM reorganized its website. I drastically pared down the list and updated some references for the names that I kept. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I recommend two or five millennia before revisiting this; the end. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

General Motors → GM – Common Name 65.175.243.206 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE the nominator is currently blocked -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose "GM" is not a redirect, it is an actual page. And you have not shown this is the primary topic for the term "GM". Further, the page at GM is too large to merge into a hatnote for this page so cannot just be moved -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ambiguous title. Khestwol (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy close please. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a non-starter. Zarcadia (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No The current name works just fine. Further, the official name of the company is General Motors. Unlike, say BP, it hasn't changed its name to an initialism. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the company's original and best known name, and the abbreviation "GM" is not specific enough. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "GM" is too ambiguous and I'm not convinced that "GM" is a more common name than "General Motors". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


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

History section woefully lacking!!!--article needs more pictures of and discussion of classic periods and models
The history section barely discusses the first 100 years (pre-2008) of this most illustrious auto manufacturer--it just glosses over the first hundred years in a couple of brief paragraphs. What a shame! The history section needs to be greatly expanded (I mean exponentially expanded). It could cover all of the great periods (i.e. 1908-2007) and create a sub-section for each: the early years, WWII and the roaring 20s, the 30s and early 40s (depression and WWII), postwar heyday (late 40s, 50's, 60s, early 70s), then years (energy crisis, downsizing, decline in popularity 1977-2007), etc. The article could include pictures of famous models from the various eras, including discontinued marques such as Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn, (maybe even mention Beaumont, the Canadian Marque), etc. We could mention famous engineers and designers such as Zora Duntov, Harley Earl, and Bill Mitchell. One gets little sense of GM's incredible history and glory days. Let's get dust off our automotive history books, folks, and gather sources to build this section up to what it should be! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what the History of General Motors article should cover. This one should only have a summary. Rmhermen (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that there is a separate article for the history. I just wish a little more was said here--it is so essential to our understanding of GM. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Garagepunk66, thanks for your observation. While GM has a goal of remaining a collaborator and not an editor of this page, we would like to provide you with some information to help add content to this section. Below are two good resources that detail our history.


 * Sources: GM.com History and Heritage; GM.com 500 Million Thanks (The Facts-Innovations-Milestones PDF on the right side of the page is very helpful); Wikipedia: History of General Motors

Pete at GM (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the history section is very poor. While the ignition recall might be noteworthy, it shouldn't get more words than say Durant's board room coup in 1916. Really the ignition section should perhaps be moved to the controversy section rather than in one of the earliest sections. However, if this is a summary of the History of General Motors article then I would say keep the history really high level and the controversial stuff should simply not be in the history section.Springee (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

General structure of the article
This article seems like it may have haphazardly evolved over the years as people wanted to add new bits and pieces to the entry. It seems like the article is too focused on recent issues to be a good general article on the company. I suspect people have wanted to make sure recent controversies are included and thus they have been added front and center with out consideration for the overall flow and quality of the whole article. In addition to the controversy section being a mess, why does the small car section even exist? Why not a truck section or a section talking about the large number of non-personal auto businesses GM has been involved in over the years? I would propose restructuring much of the article. I think all of the controversial material (perhaps including the politics surrounding the 2010 bankruptcy) should be in one section. However, if others have ideas on that I'm very open to discussion there. I think the history section should be chronological and give approximately equal weight to each decade unless there is a notable exception. Are there other auto company articles that people might suggest as a good template for the layout of this article?Springee (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy Section
The controversy section seems to just dive into one particular issue (Natter) and then bounce into other issues in a haphazard way. I would suggest that controversies be listed in historical order and each as a subheading. For lack of a better place to put it I would also suggest we move the ignition topic and the lawsuit, both mentioned in the into history section, to the controversy section. Anyone oppose?Springee (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried to fix this up a bit. I didn't do much editing of the text but I cut quite a bit.  It isn't my intent to white wash anything in this section.  Some stuff was cut because it was redundant.  The ignition recall was mentioned three times (once in the history section and twice in the controversy section).  Once is certainly enough.  Other issues seem questionable in terms of a larger picture of GM.  These include the seat heater lawsuit, and the lawsuit of the employee who was a quality inspector.  I think labor and GM could be a whole article if not several so I do think GM and labor relations are a big topic but I think the one included example is weak when we look at the history of GM.  I think GM had some Ford like labor violence in the pre-WW2 days.  That certainly seems more significant than a strike in South America that doesn't even match the importance of the 1998 strike.
 * Anyway, I was more concerned with structure than the exact content so if someone things I over cut, I wouldn't argue with added material back so long as we respect structure. I also think the bankruptcy material could be expanded though I'm not sure of the best way to do it.  I largely cut it for now since there is a main page for that topic.Springee (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Bankruptcy subsection
Petrarchan47, I agree that the bankruptcy is a very notable event in the company's history. My edit didn't actually remove it from the history section but instead linked to the specific topic page. My concern is WP:UNDUE. Certainly the bankruptcy is one of the biggest events in GM history. However, there are 100 years of that history and it seemed the short history section was 50% about the bankruptcy. Also some of the statements were possibly added with a WP:NPOV. Would you be willing to help me edit that section? Springee (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I reduced the length of the bankruptcy section by removing the second paragraph. It seemed like it could be a NPOV section but more importantly since there is a branch article on the subject the bankruptcy should probably be kept to just a single paragraph. Again, I'm not certain this is the best way to cover the material but I think it is better than what we had. Springee (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think my above ping may not have gone through. Anyway, I think we have too much WP:WEIGHT in the bankruptcy section. Remember this is a company that has been around for 100 years. The bankruptcy was clearly a very important event but in the article it is 1/2 of the company's history. That is a weight issue. Remember there is a primary article on both the overall history and the bankruptcy so it's not like the information removed doesn't exist in a linked article. Please reply to this message.Springee (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You've brought up size and weight issues, yet the change you made does not affect either of these two issues, all it did was use muddled text to speak of the cost of this bankruptcy to taxpayers. I am going to revert back to the original text for this one sentence, which does not affect the size or weight of this section so we should be good from here on out.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I found some newer numbers regarding the costs and put those into the article using the basic outline you preserved. The new numbers include the final sale of GMAC stock who's sale resulted in a net gain for the Treasury.  The "about" source is not my favorite but they reference a paywall protected WSJ article.  The numbers agreed with the USA Today article I found but USA Today didn't have dates.
 * I still think that given the 100 years of GM history and the short length of the history section we are putting too much into the bankruptcy numbers WP:UNDUE. That said, I don't think it is huge issue one way or the other.  I hope these edits address your concerns.  Thanks for the help. Springee (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

, I think the "tax payer's money" phrase needs to go as it is a weasel word (well phrase, WP:WEASEL). "Government backed" or "government funded" are better phrases. Do you have a suggestion for changing that language?Springee (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

, sorry to ping you twice. I wanted to let you know I posted a question about the "taxpayer's money" phrasing on the WP:NPOV notice board. I was curious what phrasing people might suggest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Suggestions_for_phrasing Springee (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One hour after one comment from one editor you went to NPOVN? Hugh (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Eleven minutes after raising your issue with the term "taxpayer money" you went to NPOV? Hugh (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC) The source refers to "taxpayer money" and "taxpayer loss." The term is appropriate in context, a summarization of a significant noteworthy reliable source reviewing the taxpayer contribution to the bailout, a USA Today article entitled "Government sells last of its GM shares". The term is clear and neutral. The source used the term, and we can, too. Hugh (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I went to that forum because I was asking the community the best way to reference the government funds. Pertracharn47 is the only recent editor other than me on the talk page.  He didn't specifically comment on the question though I can assume he is OK with that text.  Since I think it is wrong but I have little input it made sense to ask others.  WP doesn't say that just because a source uses non-neutral language we should also.  Why is "taxpayer money", better than "government funded" or "federally funded".  Do you think that "taxpayer money" does not carry a negative connotation?Springee (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Our fine colleagues the regulars at NPOVN ask us to discuss at talk before posting. You posted at NPOVN 11 minutes after your first commented here regarding your concern with the term "taxpayer money." NPOVN asks for a link to a prior attempt to resolve the issue at article talk. Please comment at NPOVN acknowledging the premature notice and directing interested editors to comment here at article talk. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As should be clear to you, this was a general question for the community. It came from this article but I wanted to ask it in more general terms and thus considered leaving the GM article entirely out of the question.  Since you think I should have asked in a different forum please tell me which oneSpringee (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "I wanted to ask it in more general terms" If your goal is to add "taxpayer money" to WP:WEASEL then please post to WT:WTW. Hugh (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Troubled Asset Relief Program article should be the standard since the majority of the funds for GM came from that program. That article refers to the funds in various ways including disbursements from the government.  The article does not refer to the program funds as "taxpayer's".  Again, that would be the most neutral language in my view.  Springee (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not in the source being summarized. USA TODAY used the term "taxpayer money" because it is simple and clear and neutral and because the context is assessing the taxpayer position in the bailout, and we can, too. Why is it more neutral to be less clear? Hugh (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think WP:LABEL is the section I needed, not weasel. It states that value driven labels should be avoided.  The USA Today article uses several term including "Treasury" and "Government".
 * , your recent citation tag edits might be mistaken. I think you should take another look at the USA Today article. The $10.5 and $1.5B are both in the article.  The $12B is just a summation of the two.  As I think the whole section goes into a bit too much detail (as I've explained above) I would be OK with striking much of that section but it looks like the reference is sound.  Springee (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We clearly understand from your previous edits that your preferred coverage of the taxpayer contribution to the bailout is none, and that you prefer to ignore noteworthy reliable sources on the topic of the taxpayer contribution to the bailout. The $1.5B is incorrectly described in the article. Hugh (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article currently mis-states the impact of the bankruptcy. It describes General Motors as an ongoing business for a century. In reality, General Motors Corporation ceased to exist in 2011. See Motors Liquidation Company.  If you owned stock in General Motors Corporation, you lost almost everything. The present entity, General Motors Company, is a new, smaller entity which bought some, but not all, of the assets of the defunct General Motors Corporation.  The article should reflect this. John Nagle (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Distinguished "old GM" and "new GM" in lede. John Nagle (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As a legal company, yes the current GM was founded in 2009. However, as an organization the history goes back about 100 years.  The article covers back to the founding in the early days of the auto industry so the lead should also cover that period and not focus only on the 2009 and later corporate entity.  Bloomberg list the company history as going back to 1897 (the founding of Opel).

GM article
There is a table showing the number of vehicles sold in each of several countries with the US first and China second. But I think there should also be a table showing the number of vehicles manufactured in each country and the countries should be ranked. This might also be done by brand (Buick, Chevy, GMC, and Cadillac) for each country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:107:2C01:983:2287:3AB0:873A (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)