Talk:BMW

BMW History - 1959 to 1995 period is empty !!

Almost thirty years including first export of cars, etc, is not covered. Someone should update this, as it's pretty bad. Sadly, I don't know enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.43.245 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of BMW logo "has all changed in the last year"

• Williams, Stephen (7 January 2010), "BMW Roundel: Not Born From Planes", The New York Times, retrieved 2010-01-08

Article should probably be updated; apparently BMW museum has come upon documents recently that prove the 1917 design was solely a version of the colors, and the propeller connection wasn't made until 1929. At least, that seems to be the official BMW version now. --Dbratland (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Peskett, Karl (5 August 2011), BMW reveals the origin of its logo in video form, retrieved 2011-12-29

Based on this video from BMW it's clear that BMW has concretely identified its logo as being a modification of the Rapp logo. Any association with an airplane propeller has to be a later addition to the BMW lore, and should be removed as the inspiration of the logo. ShinySteelRobot (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazi connections

I have made this section smaller due to undue weight, this is not a BMW bashing witch hunt article, and neither is it a Quandt article - considering what BMW are notable for, you should not devote so much of the article to whining about the Nazis, otherwise any article relating to Germany could have an extensive whining Nazi past section. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit. If you scroll up you can see this has been discussed more than once, and the undue weight argument has failed to win consensus. It's too bad those who want to reduce or eliminate the Nazi section want to edit anonymously. It's impossible to tell if this is three editors or one, but that's not my problem.

My advice would be to create an account and/or to then make a proposal here on the talk page to refactor the Nazi section. The sense I get is that most editors don't see undue weight here, and your best bet would be to come armed with numerous good sources that support the argument to remove material in question. Or just let it go; it really is a small part of a big article. --Dbratland (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

just letting it go is probably the wise choice, removing cited information when there are no BLP issues is always hard, I don't agree with the amount of space taken up by that section, but if people take the time to read it they will realise the extent of BMW's Nazi past - afterall it is not as if BMW was making Zyklon B or running death camps. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This danish freedom fighter section in the company history is rediculous. There might have been thousands of claims against BMW after the war, it´s plain cherry picking to just list one in detail in a brief summary, that doesn´t even try to cover the whole history. There is a separate article for this purpose, namely the history of BMW. I seriously doubt that a random reader of this article would appreciate such trivial remarks. Let´s try to make this article coherent. I want this article to explain the history of BMW, not the nazi past of Quandt family. Instead, there should be a separate article for that purpose. My suggestion for the structure of this article is, that is should cover the foundation, start up of the different branches, involvement in WWII production (what type of stuff it produced and that slave labour was used) and the history after WWII. If the history section consists of, say 5 paragraphs, I´d say one paragraph dedicated for this purpose is definitely the ceiling. The history from 60´s onwards is much more related to the current business. (Villevav (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

I agree that this content is of tenuous relevance to this article. Günther Quandt would be a more appropriate article. Letdorf (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

See also this archived discussion, where another user pointed out Wikipedia:Coatrack. Is the artilce about BMW or Günther Quandt? Let's say the current CEO of XYZ Enterprises was prosecuted for a crime (e.g. financial fraud) during the 1970s, would that mean that half of the history section of the "XYZ Enterprises" article should be devoted to discussion about the CEO's fraudulent behaviour? I would say no, as the article is about the company, not the unrelated activities of its employees.

Companies tend to work with the respective governments of the day otherwise they would not be in business for much longer. This applies regardless of whether people or other countries find the activities of the government objectionable (take a look at all the Western companies operating in China right now, they do everything they can to comply with the regulations in that country). Almost every major German company operating at the time would have had some Nazi connections as this was required by German law. For the companies involved it was a choice of compliance or perish. Like it or not, ethical compliance is not the primary goal for most corporations. The focus should shift away from Quandt towards the role of BMW as a company in regards to compliance with the laws in place from 1933–1945. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The section in question is hardly relevant to this article. The sole link to BMW is that Quandt became a shareholder, 15 years after WWII. The remainder of the section is about the Quandt family, it has nothing to do with BMW. --Sable232 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now all that the article say in relation to the Nazis is that BMW did a super-great job building super-special jet fighters for the Luftwaffe so that the Germans could keep killing RAF fighters and keep fighting for Hitler and so on-- good for them, right, what clever little Germans they are.

So I guess all you guys who wanted to whitewash that part of the article did a pretty great job, but, I'm pretty suspicious of the whole thing now. I mean, now, all it does is say how GOOD they were and how CLEVER-- like we should DEFEND their work with Hitler, you know.

And I'm not sure that that's the appropriate stance to take on this important issue.

Like, *what* did the article use to say? What did it use to say?

What did they do that was so bad, that, now we can't hear about it anymore?

Did they use slave labor, for example?

Is that what they did that we need to cover up? Did they use slave labor?

If they were *so good* that they didn't use slave labor, then, maybe we should mention that. Or, if they *did* use slave labor, then, maybe we should explain that they supported Hitler and the Nazis, and, not just as a CHARITY EVENT, but, because they wanted some slaves to put to work building cars and everything, right.

After all, as the whitewashers have implied, it was pretty common for Germans to be Nazi fascists who loved Hitler, and, yeah, maybe this is *relevant* in terms of.... business ethics, maybe? Some business books say that ethics are important-- business ethics. And I guess that whether or not you think that Hitler is a fucking fascist or not is an important part of that.

Or else we can just revert to pro-Nazi apologetics: all Germans were Nazis, and, therefore, because all Germans did that, *because that's the way that Germans acted*, it must have been okay, because it just is, because Germans are.... always okay!*

And, you know, since we know that it's not okay, let's just not talk about it, right.

But, why don't we talk about this? No need to get *mealy-mouthed and vague*, let's talk about specifics.

As good Germans, BMW happily compiled with all the Nazi laws that were in place during Hitler's cheerful administration of 1933-1945.

And we'd expect nothing less from them, right. After all, this is apparently the way that Germans normally behave, there's almost no need to mention it *every* time that Germans were fascist criminals, since they were really *all* like that, huh, whitewashers?

BMW compiled with Hitler's laws for twelve years.

Let's talk about specifics.

What does that mean.

What did they do.

!

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

G Power and Alpina bought by BMW

This is clearly a hoax. Good riddance.

It also serves as an example of why unsourced additions should be reverted immediately, especially if they contain anything but utterly commonplace, perfectly logical and well-known facts. But buying two little accessories companies on the same date, for € 1.3 billion and € 2.7 billion, with not an iota of news and no press releases, is obviously bullshit. --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to model line up display

I have simplified the list of current BMWs.

It is far too congested and if someone wanted to find a quick link to all of the BMWs it is far more easier to do it now than before where you had to read three paragraphs. It has worked well on Mercedes-Benz for years now. Wjs.william (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The main tool Wikipedia has for that purpose is categories, in this case, Category:BMW vehicles. There is also a page called List of BMW vehicles for anyone who wants the same information in a somewhat different format. Taking the same information, and putting it into yet a third format on BMW is not helpful. --Dbratland (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And on the bottom of the page is the same links to BMW cars formatted in another way, in a timeline. If a reader can't find the BMW they want in the category, the list, or the timeline, not to mention the search engine, there's no helping them. --Dbratland (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with you putting a short list in the article as it complements the existing prose, but in my opinion the prose is much more useful and should stay and agree with others (like me) who have reinstated it following your repeated deletion. However, I did rework the list (assuming it is going to stay) to use more conventional formatting and a single link on each line. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I just had used it and I thought that it was too cluttered if you just wanted to quickly find a model. Looks much better now.Wjs.william (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Largest luxury car maker claim

I have twice removed the claim in the intro that BMW is the largest luxury car manufacturer - the first time it was uncited, the second time it was cited but with nothing more than a passing reference in an article about a different company. I have issues with these "largest" claims. Firstly by what measure is the largest claim being made? i.e. by units produced, by revenue? What portion of BMW's vehicles can be classed as luxury cars? Certainly the 1 series and the MINI aren't, nor are their bikes which make up a proportion of their revenue. I think the claim is so riddled with potential pitfalls that it is best to omit it unless really clear comparison criteria and supporting data can be produced. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is pretty definitive. Gr1st (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't though. I does separate MINI and Rolls Royce, but does not make any other model distinctions. I would challenge anyone who says that the 1 series is a luxury vehicle. "Luxury" is a purely subject term and as such I think it should be avoided when making claims of "biggest in the world". By all means include data on BMW's sales - that is a great reference, and even compare them with its competitors, but I'd prefer if it was left at that.--Biker Biker (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC) (EDIT of course I meant "subjective term" not "subject term". --Biker Biker (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

I agree the business week article is insufficient. Looking at the 2008 production numbers at OICA [23], it's not clear at all whether Mercedes or BMW makes more cars -- subtracting the Minis and the Smart Cars, retrospectively -- you end up with about the same number for each, in the neighborhood of 1 to 1.2 million. Subtract the non-luxury cars from the remainder and its anybody's guess which one comes out ahead. And that was in 2008, and a lot has changed since then. The top 5 car makers, Toyota, GM, VW, Ford and Honda, each made 3 to 5 times as many cars as BMW, and any one of them could have made more than the 1 to 1.2 million (theoretically) luxury cars as BMW.

So what data we have suggests its too close to call without very definite numbers. And I see no urgent need to have any superlative about the top luxury car maker without strong support -- how does it really make the article better, anyway? --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And I did not even think of BMW as a luxury car. I have tried a BMW, that was like driving a dodgem car. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up of Bimmer and Beemer?

Any explanation for deleting this paragraph? It's well sourced and relevant. "Clean up" doesn't tell us much. --Dbratland (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Porm industry, marc williams

Appears that the page has been hijacked. Founder is inexplicably a "marc williams," and the company was established in 19177777777777777777777?

I can't help right now, but entire article might need a readover. Luckily, looks like the hijacker doesn't like to use capital letters.

Somebody help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Arts section addition

BMW Guggenheim Lab is to be a multidisciplinary exhibition, forum, think tank, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Year of establishment

The year of establishment in this article could not be right(in box). If you switch to the german version of this article you could see that it have another foundation date: 7. März/March 1916 I think this should be changed because as Germans they better know when one of their companies was founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.186.196 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

According to BMW's own website: 1917.[24] BFW was formed in 1916. Warren (talk)

A bad image

That picture at the box in this article is bad - I think we all know what that picture is the Jon Woods one, but it's not related to the BMW article at all. I think a removing this unrelated picture. --Jason 07:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason sanez (talk • contribs)

'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal

Dear all,

I am currently proposing this new WikiProject would have the primary aim of creating and developing a page for each model (both old and new) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. This would enable a highly valuable resource to be for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself to be created, where extensive information about specifications, development, modifications and the history behind could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject is not only being promoted to present editors who are currently active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course of a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Please visit the project proposal page, in order to see more details of the project and to join. Any questions or queries can be posted either on the proposal page, or I can be contacted directly on my talk page.

Many thanks and any help from fellow enthusiasts on this project would be greatly appreciated.

DAFMM (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Theft using OBD

Is it just me or does this section seem woefully out of place and just odd given the overall content and context of the article?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It got a lot of press footage in the UK. I don't think it needs its own section, but the information is nevertheless useful and relevant IMO. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember it getting press in the US as well. I mainly just think its out of place in the article. Is it significant (WP Notable) enough that it deserves its own article?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper, but...

Hi Folks, Let me start by saying that although I'm an auto enthusiast, I wouldn't say that BMW vehicles do or do not have any special interest for me (OK, the 850 series were just plain cool, but that's about the extent of my fan interest). That said, there appears to be 2 items that are more "current events" than encyclopedic information. The OBD theft section, if nothing else just appears to be out of place in the article, and the "I'd rather cry in a BMW" (although strange that it has its own article) link in the "See also" just seems completely out of character and context for the rest of the article. The article does not have a "BMW in popular culture" section and maybe it needs one. This doesn't resolve what to do with the OBD section, but maybe someone's suggestion will. What are your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A pop culture section is a dumping ground for lazy editors. The OBD stuff should be merged up into a more appropriate section of the article. The thing that makes it hard to merge up is the question, "How does this affect BMW?" Were sales harmed? Were cars redesigned? If it had not effect, then it is of no importance and should just be deleted rather than consigned to a pop culture dumping ground. I would rather cry in a BMW isn't really about BMW, it's about China. I'd lean towards removing it from the See also section if it has had no effect or influence on BMW itself. If it is important to the BMW community/culture of China, then move it to the Community section. Possibly broaden "community" by renaming it "culture". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove S1000RR from Motorsport victories, add Isle of Man TT and land speed records

The S1000RR Superbike racer is nice and all, but the Motorsport section is a roster of victories and championships, isn't it? Shouldn't that be removed until something substantial is achieved? In its place, shouldn't things like IOM victories be listed? BMW once dominated the 500 cc sidecars, for example. Similarly, the 1930-1937 Motorcycle land-speed records were significant and should be listed here. I think there were other motorcycle championships in the early period as well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Supercars/Concept Cars

I'm not a car guy, but when I am interested in cars I want to see their super cars and concepts cars. Why is there no mention of that? I know for a fact BMW has an i8 concept car that was introduced at a car show somewhere, why isn't that on this page?

StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

Changes to current models should include the updated lineup

Before:

1 Series (E81) (2004–present) Coupe and convertible
3 Series (E93) (2007–present) convertible
7 Series (F01) (2008–present) Sedan
5 Series (F10) (2009–present) Sedan, wagon
6 Series (F12) (2010–present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe
1 Series (F20) (2011–present) Hatchback
3 Series (F30) (2012–present) Sedan, wagon
4 Series (2014–present) Coupe
3 Series Gran Turismo (2013–present) Progressive Activity Sedan
5 Series Gran Turismo (2009–present) Progressive Activity Sedan
BMW i3 (To be launched 2014) Sedan
X1 (2009–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X3 (F25) (2010–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X5 (E70) (2006–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X6 (E71) (2008–present) Sports Activity Coupe
Z4 (E89) (2009–present) Sports Roadster

After:
1 Series (F20) (2011–present) Hatchback
2 Series (F22) (2013-present) Coupe and convertible
3 Series (F30) (2012-present) Sedan and wagon
4 Series (F32) (2014-present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe
5 Series (F10) (2009–present) Sedan, wagon
6 Series (F12) (2010–present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe
7 Series (F01) (2008–present) Sedan
3 Series Gran Turismo (2013–present) Progressive Activity Sedan
5 Series Gran Turismo (2009–present) Progressive Activity Sedan
BMW i3 (i1) (2013-present) Sedan
BMW i8 (i12) (2013-present) Sports Car
X1 (2009–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X3 (F25) (2010–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X4 (F26) (2014-present) Sports Activity Coupe
X5 (F15) (2013-present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X6 (E71) (2008–present) Sports Activity Coupe
Z4 (E89) (2009–present) Sports Roadster

On a side note, under M Models the M3/M4 start production in 2014 not 2013.

A.a.tawab (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

AG

What does the AG in the name mean? The page doesn't say, or link to an article that tells what this means. I think to U.S. readers this would not be known, my guess is that it is like Private company limited by shares Limited, Ltd., or Incorporation_(business), Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.140.96 (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a US-only project. AG stands for "Aktiengesellschaft", as alluded to in the infobox; it is indeed a company owned by shareholders, but isn't strictly a PLC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't allude to things, we make it obvious. Fixed now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

BMW = Bayrische Motoren Werke = Bavarian Motor Factories/Plants

Ein Werk = a work. yes. but a Motorenwerk isn't motor works, it is a motor factory.

So, BMW = Bavarian Motor Plants or Bavarian Motor Factories.