Talk:General Motors

POV Pushing

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

It seems to me the whole article is in need of reorganisation and a change in tone of writing. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide one or more examples? Or better just fix it.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Rewrite Intro

The introduction does not adequately summarize the article's contents. It is slanted toward recent events.Synchronism (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just came here to make the same note. The company is over 100 years old, but the lead is 75% based on events that have occurred within the last 2 months. Certainly the last 2 months have witnessed major events and should covered in the article, but the lead is terribly unbalanced. Dman727 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Criticism of Financial Practices

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

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

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

Needing Updating

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

Reaction to 2008/2009 global economic decline

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

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

That's a strong assumption. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Information template problems

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

<a href=http://www.autofinance247.com> Auto Finance </a>

Bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

Bankruptcy article?

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

Say General Motors bankruptcy? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Largest bankruptcies

At the top of the page, it says this was the fourth largest, while in the Bankruptcy section at the bottom it says it is the third largest. Which is it? --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's a question of prioritising sources according to their times of creation and publication. I speak with my Wikinews editor hat on to provide an insight into this:

  Before the court documents were actually filed, news sources were saying the third, and that is what most news sources who simply published the stories that they had prepared ahead of time reported. When I started n:U.S. manufacturer General Motors declares bankruptcy, I took the assets figure reported, by Bloomberg, that were in the actual filing, rather than estimates made ahead of time, and a table of prior bankruptcies from New Generation Research. GM ranked below the third and above the fourth in the NGR table. Ironically, as I was writing the Wikinews article, NGR updated its table, listing GM fourth. Since then, other news sources, such as the one cited in this article in these edits, have also done the same arithmetic as I and NGR did, and found it to be the fourth, not third. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Employees

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

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

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

General Motors 'was'...

In reference to the first sentence of the article, 'General Motors Corporation was a global automaker'. Since when has General Motors entered into the past tense? The company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and will emerge, as has been quoted in the media, 'in a matter of months' as a more 'competitve company'. I edited the 'was' to 'is', but is has since been changed again, is there any valid reason for doing this? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, no, it shouldn't be referred to in the past tense. This is only Chapter 11 reorganization. If a company hits Chapter 7, or is merged out, it can be referred to in the past tense. --John Nagle (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur: Should remain in present tense. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Second-largest"

I think the second sentence of the introduction should be changed from "It is the world's second-largest automaker..." to "It was the world's second-largest automaker ... in 2008". In the current year, they have fallen behind German Volkswagen (and possibly other companies as well). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Added "bankrupt to the first sentence as well, since this seemed to be taken for granted in the rest of the introduction.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Split or Fork

The news have it that General Motors as of today has split into New GM and Old GM — New GM, containing Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC, and Old GM, containing designated bad assets such as Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Saab — and Old GM to be headed (and beheaded) by Al Koch. My suggestion is to keep the article - and the topic about the historic automaker, and create two new articles New GM and Old GM for the "new" companies started today. Dedalus (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed thoroughly, as it has the potential to create a real mess if not done right. As such, New GM and Old GM have been redirected to General Motors until there is a concrete plan of action. (For one thing, we need to know what the company's actual title will be.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's premature. But we do need to do some trimming. I'd suggest spinning off the racing-related material into General Motors racing activities or something like that. --John Nagle (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On a wiki there is no need to know the name of something by how something will be called a year from now. Today, the two new companies go by the name New GM and Old GM. Suppose by the end of the week some marketing geek has found a new name for say New GM we can move then the article to that new name. And, furthermore, there is no concrete plan of action at all in creating Wikipedia beyond "anyone can edit". Actually, I only tested the viability of the two new companies New GM and Old GM. It looks like to me the two newborns died on their first day. In that case the U.S. taxpayers will have lost another 30 billion US dollar, the amount of money poured in the new companies. The market is always right. The U.S. dollar started slipping against the euro again. Dedalus (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I also believe such a change would be premature. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's just easier to create a General Motors bankruptcy article to deal with all that, and this article will just detail what happened before and afterwards. (the "non performing GM" will not really exist for long) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. There's now an explanation of what is formally planned to happen at General Motors bankruptcy#Planned sale. I doubt that "old GM" and "new GM" are the proper, formal, names for these companies. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Closeapple moved New GM (which was a redirect at the time of move) to Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC, showing proper wiki spirit. Dedalus (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please help clean up the citations

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

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

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

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

Development of electronics for GM auto racing" section

I've moved the "Development of electronics for GM auto racing" section out into its |own article. It was way too long and detailed for a very niche part of GM (electronics for open-wheel racing) to be included on the main General Motors page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polpo (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. The article got marked as copyvio. I should have checked it. Looks like it was cribbed from an official GM wiki. Polpo (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Double whoops! Looks like the text was contributed by the original author of the article. My apologies. Polpo (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GM and nazi's

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

6 out of 7 pictures are hybrids/electric etc??

GM will not be remembered for its fuel efficient cars, but for its iconic cars. Surely, a picture of an old car would be better than yet another hybrid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.241.5 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I put in a picture of a classic GM muscle car, a 1969 Pontiac GTO. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we call GM Government Moters due to chapter 11 filing?

Should we put into the intro, GM, or General Motors, is also refered to by the news media as "Government Motors" BronxNY (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a tongue in cheek, recently dubbed nickname doesn't sound like it belongs in the intro. TastyCakes (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Give it more time. GM might end up like Amtrak, but we're not there yet. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reordering some sections

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

Operating Profit is positive?

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

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

Cadillac and Others Purchase date

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

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

Hummer

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

Federal Reserve Nonsense

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

I should add, you can make the argument that it was Fed's loose monetary policy that lead up to the .com speculative bubble. The stock market decline, however, was a correction to the economic reality and not a result of FED tightening. If you're interested in the topic, grab a copy of [2]. It was recommended to me by Paolo Pasquariello

New GM and Old GM

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

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

• And the old GM holding unsold real estate, Hummer, and other assets is called "Motors Liquidation Company."

Maynard, MIcheline (July 10, 2009). "A Primer on the New General Motors". New York Times. Retrieved July 10, ,2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I also put the name in History of General Motors under "Chapter 11 filing June 2009".Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge General Motors Company LLC article into this article

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

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

Agree with merge. Let's keep this article since it uses the common name General Motors. Lets merge the General Motors Company LLC article into this article. They contain the same information. The separate General Motors Company LLC article is not needed. There is also the History of General Motors and the General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization article which can be used.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the merge. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with merge. Please complete as soon as possible.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, because I once linked to AT&T from several articles, only to discover how poor an article it was. The trouble is that article was about the post-merger SBC. I had to go back and fix my links.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. It would be a huge pain in the ass otherwise. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

agree based on the fact that GM Company is the new GM and should be the main article. If there isto be a splint then the old GM corporation should be seperate article. In closing my rationale is the new GM should be in this article as the new likley search term. 166.137.135.5 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

10% ownership of "New GM" by "Old GM"

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to reflect GM emergence from bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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