Jump to content

Talk:General Motors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asüna

[edit]

Should Asüna, which I'd never heard of until five minutes ago, be in the table of former GM brands? Mr Larrington (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you never heard of it before is no reason to remove something from Wikipedia. Asüna was a brand used for captive imports in Canada, much like how Geo was used in the US. Even if it was short lived, I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the list. --Vossanova o< 14:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering summary is totally missing

[edit]

The article is missing any summary description of the engineering of GM products, and company initiatives to engineer their products. It is missing the role of major engineering efforts of previous decades. But it is also missing things like the commitment GM made in 2019 to design an electric vehicle platform (which they seem to call "Altium") for many EVs across their brands.

This would seem to be important because new products during major technology shifts are critical to a company continuing to exist or the company missing a societal technology shift, and potentially failing or consolidating/shrinking later on. See any Tesla article and you won't find the design, development, & engineering going on missing from an encyclopedic treatment of the company. Cheers. — 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC) N2e (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you have suitable references then feel free to add such a section. If it is more than a few paragraphs long then consider creating a new article and leaving just a summary and link to it from this article.
Beware that almost all big manufacturers have promised to go all electric at some future date. Corporations are also known to change their mind at the drop of a hat. Promises are cheap and non-binding.  Stepho  talk  10:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition of Ford

[edit]

In 1909, General Motors attempted to buy Ford but failed. Is it possible within the following years for General Motors to acquire Ford, as Durant attempted 114 years ago? General Motors would need to buy the Ford Motor Company, to be able to re-take its title as the world's largest automaker, and come close to Toyota with around 10 million produced vehicles a year. GM, would then grow from just four car brands to six or five (depending on if GMC will be discontinued and replaced by Chevrolet): Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC (the current four); Ford, Lincoln (two new brands if acquiring the FMC). 90.231.234.93 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussion about improving the article. It is not for general discussion about Ford (or GM) and certainly not for speculation on what Ford or GM could do in the future. Stick to reported facts. See WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTFORUM.  Stepho  talk  21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weight given to individual strikes

[edit]

Is there a reason to have individual subsections for recent strikes? I mean auto worker strikes are hardly new yet we have as many sections talking about post 2000 strikes as we do for strikes in the all of the 1900s. The impact of individual strikes is probably due in the labor section but this article suggests the strikes in the 70s, 80s and 90s aren't important while the strike which just started is very important. Are editors opposed to some type of consolidation? We could list major strikes without going into detail in this article. Springee (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of WP:RECENTISM.  Stepho  talk  10:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fined $145.8 million and perhaps worse to come

[edit]

See this recent story. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

npov

[edit]

This article puts undue weight on irrelevant information, like logo changes over the years, and hides all criticism in a section at the bottom of a very long article. Polygnotus (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are generally fround upon and it is reasonable to have such sections towards the end of an article. I do agree there is a more of low value material in this article. Springee (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frowned? See WP:CRITICISM. The tag can be removed when the problem is fixed and balance has been restored. Polygnotus (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't agree that there is a problem but if you want to keep the tag there then give us something actionable. If you think there is fluff then remove it or propose it's removal. As for the criticism section, the essay you quote list cautions about such sections. In the case of this article the section seems rather long and it's not clear how many of those sections really pass the 10 year test/are significant in context of a 100 year old organization. Certainly the Nader stuff is but the other sections are less clear. Anyway, if you can't better articulate the issue and if others don't support that there is an issue the NPOV tag should be removed. Springee (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding all criticism at the bottom of a rather long article is a great way to ensure only the most dedicated people will read it. We should give attention where its due, get rid of undue cruft, and present the topic in a balanced way. A company that has existed for 100+ years certainly has attracted some criticism over the years. For example, the WWF has criticism mentioned in the lead section, and reliable sources are far more positive about the WWF than GM. The tag can be removed when the conditions to do so have been met. Does anyone care about the logo evolution over the years? The management section should probably be reduced to some key people in the infobox. Is the attention to the 5 vehicles sold for breast cancer research due? Polygnotus (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like this can be added:
General Motors (GM) has agreed to pay a $145.8 million penalty and forfeit emissions credits worth hundreds of millions of dollars following a U.S. government investigation that found excess emissions from approximately 5.9 million GM vehicles from 2012-2018 model years. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered that these vehicles were emitting more than 10% higher carbon dioxide on average than GM's initial compliance reports claimed, leading GM to give up about 50 million metric tons in carbon allowances. Additionally, GM will cancel over 30.6 million fuel economy credits for 2008-2010 model years to resolve issues identified by the EPA's testing program.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-pay-1458-million-penalty-after-us-finds-excess-emissions-59-million-vehicles-2024-07-03/
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/general-motors-agrees-retire-50-million-metric-tons-greenhouse-gas-credits-resolve
https://apnews.com/article/general-motors-penalty-government-pollution-standards-9dd1f13a9ec4681537fd2fddd62e6258
Polygnotus (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section isn't hidden, that simply is where editors have decided to put that section. If you want to move it up why are you going to claim it should be above sections like history etc. As for your emissions credit example, that seems like a very minor story in the grand scheme of things. Do you have any sources that have shown this is a long term impacts on the company or industry? What lasting significance has this had in the news? Decades after the Nader controversy people still talk about it. Will they talk about GM overestimating fuel economy over a 6 year period? I don't see that as content that should be included at all (perhaps a single line mention in a section about emissions compliance as a whole) much less justifying moving a whole section further up in the article. Springee (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure $145.8 million is a minor story. Or 50 million metric tons of greenhouse gas credits. The Volkswagen emissions scandal is very notable and has indepth coverage in many reliable sources. The article includes stuff like: At the age of 24, Bill Mitchell was recruited by Earl to the design team at GM, and he was later appointed as Chief Designer of Cadillac. After Earl retired in December 1958, Mitchell took over automotive design for GM. How relevant is that in a decade? How relevant is that right now? They got into trouble for overestimating fuel economy over a 6 year period, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened before or since. Polygnotus (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also weird how this article got a "philantropy" section, mentioning the time they gave 5 cars to a good cause (1996 new vehicle sales 4.79 million units), but not a lobbying section that mentions the fact that they spent insane amounts of money on lobbying (e.g. see opensecrets and their U.S. POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW. Polygnotus (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically all large companies lobby. As for giving away 5 cars. Yeah, that's sounds like the sort of stuff that should be removed. That said, what we shouldn't do is make this article read like it was written by people who want to make the company sound/look bad. Personally I think the history section could be far longer and the modern content should be reduced. Springee (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should be neutral. In some cases, being neutral makes a company/person/group/ideology sound bad. The history section could be spun off into a new article. Polygnotus (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the emissions stuff, a quick Google search shows that this is not a one-time thing:

If you google General Motors site:justice.gov there are some pretty interesting results. Polygnotus (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A company with over 100 years of history is going to be long. And a company with many brands and a presence in many countries is also going to be long. And naturally they will have many controversies for the same reasons. Currently we have sections for history, brands, corporate affairs, philanthropy, labor conflicts and controversies. The labor conflicts should probably be in the controversies section. The labor conflicts and controversies sections start at about the 50% mark and take the rest of the article. 50% is a pretty hefty size. Are you saying that we need more than 50% ? Sounds more like you have an axe to grind. Normally I'd agree to having a separate history article. However, that will then push the combined controversies to something like 75% of the article. Unless we push the labor conflicts and controversies into another article as well - and for balance put the philanthropy in there as well.
In most history books about GM, Earl and Mitchell normally get a chapter of their own. They were enormously influential to how GM looked and to the car industry in general. After Sloan, they were probably the most influential men in GM. Yes, people will still be talking about them for many future decades.  Stepho  talk  10:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The labor conflicts section should be pruned and incorporated in the history section. The controversies section should be expanded and incorporated in the history section. The "Logo evolution" section should probably be removed. The management section should probably be reduced to some key people in the infobox. Sticking all negative info at the end of an article is a bit weird. And not mentioning anything negative in the lead is also a bit weird considering this is a company with a long history and of course stuff happened in so many years, both good and bad. If 50% of an article is all negative and the other 50% is all positive, that is clearly an NPOV problem. Polygnotus (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho really gets to the point. Currently the article has too much not too little criticism. If environmental issues are the concern then why not mention that the company was responsible for the invention of Freon (CFCs) and leaded gas in the controversy section.Springee (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see everyone agreeing with the fact that this currently ain't neutral. Freon and leaded gas are mentioned in the article. In 1921, Thomas Midgley Jr., an engineer for GM, discovered tetraethyllead (leaded gasoline) as an antiknock agent, and GM patented the compound because ethanol could not be patented.[32] This led to the development of higher compression engines resulting in more power and efficiency. The public later realized that lead contained in the gasoline was harmful to various biological organisms including humans.[33] Evidence shows that corporate executives understood the health implications of tetraethyllead from the beginning.[34] As an engineer for GM, Midgley also developed chlorofluorocarbons, which have now been banned due to their contribution to climate change.[35] Polygnotus (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 50% of the article focusing being two large, negative sections, is a npov problem. Springee (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You changed your comment after I had already replied to it. Bad form. Polygnotus (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an edit conflict Springee (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't, but this edit conflict resolve thing sure is weird and confusing. Anyway, the idea is to incorporate criticism in the article, not stick it in a separate section at the bottom. Polygnotus (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of us agree with that (hence my earlier comment about frowned upon). What I don't agree with is over 50% of the article being negative. We should be especial careful about including recent stories such at the $145 million fine since there is little evidence this will be a long term significant story. Springee (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown above that this is a long-term pattern. It has been reported on by many reliable sources. So while it ain't a good look, it is certainly important to include in this article. Polygnotus (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at the details I'm not sure. Is this something that no other car companies are doing? Was this like the VW diesel issue where the issue was very clearly against the rules or was this a gray area where the company felt it wasn't doing the wrong thing but the EPA disagreed (vs the EPA felt they were deliberately trying to mislead as VW was doing)? As a 1 sentence section in context it may be due. It isn't due for a new paragraph in the controversy section. The inclusion/exclusion of this content isn't enough to say the who article has a POV problem. Springee (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was something other companies were also doing, see Volkswagen emissions scandal, and it received and receives huge amounts of coverage in reliable sources. It wasn't a matter of differing interpretation of the rules, and it wasn't a small percentage. It certainly requires at least one paragraph, in the history section. I agree that this issue is only a tiny part of a much larger NPOV problem in this article. Polygnotus (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Motors&oldid=1238545187"