Talk:General Motors

GM article

There is an 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.

Scope of article, GM starting in 1908 or GM starting in 2009?

@Stockst:, I saw your recent redirects in this article. Am I correct in thinking you would like this article to be about post 2009 GM Company only? I think we should keep this article about GM the organization rather than just the post 2009 legal entity. From most points of view GM is still GM. Yes, legally the company is new but as an operating organization (the buildings, the products, the people etc) it's still the same company. I don't think someone looking for say information about the parent company of the Corvette would expect to find it under MLC. I would suggest that search terms like General Motors, General Motors Corporation and General Motors Company all point to this article. If I'm confusing your intent I apologize and please let me know. Springee (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Springee. This article (General Motors) is problematic due its many ambiguous and incorrect statements. The first sentence of the article suggests that the article is about General Motors Company, but there is a lot of article content relating to the corporation (General Motors Corporation, now Motors Liquidation Company) which existed pre-2009.

If people want to know about the company that existed prior to 2009, it shouldn't be that difficult for them to click on the link to the Motors Liquidation Company article which is in the hatnote at the top of the article.

You used Corvette as an example, but I'm not sure how this is relevant? Corvette is a car model made by Chevrolet, and there are separate articles for both Corvette and Chevrolet. Stockst (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You also said that "as an operating organization (the buildings, the products, the people etc) it's still the same company", which isn't really true. As part of General Motors Corporation's bankruptcy, it sold brands Hummer, Saturn and Saab. It also ended the Pontiac brand.

Furthermore, General Motors Company funded itself with far less debt than General Motors Corporation. This is all on top of the fact that General Motors Company is a different company to General Motors Corporation. Stockst (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think most readers who want to know about say the Ralph Nader controversy would search for "Liquidation Motors Company". Your concern regarding the article stating it is about GM Company and also covering GM Corporation is correct. I think a better way to solve this would be to simply change the lead to indicate that General Motors refers to both. I would reserve the LMC article for only material specific to the bankruptcy. If nothing else we would use the common name for the company that was only in it's last few years legally known as LMC. Anyway, I would suggest getting some other opinions before making a large scale change. Springee (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with allowing the General Motors article to cover General Motors Corporation (in addition to General Motors Company) is that you then have two articles covering the same topic - because Motors Liquidation Company is already an article about the entity formerly known as General Motors Corporation. Stockst (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Ralph Nader, readers would be better served by looking at the articles Ralph Nader or Unsafe at Any Speed. I don't see how the bankruptcy of General Motors Corporation changes this. Stockst (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That's easy enough to deal with. We make the scope of this article 'GM' from 1908 to current. We make the scope of LMC just the bankruptcy related material. With the change you are proposing how would you handle the references to GM in say articles about the Corvette and Lumina? Would you say the former was developed by LMC and currently sold by GM company? The Lumina article would say it was made by the Chevrolet division of LMC? Wikipedia says we should use common name when possible. In this case we should use put both companies, as they are a single continuous operation under one name. I think you are going for a complex solution to a minor problem. Given the importance of this article to the Automotive project this is a change that would need buy in from others. Springee (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking in the talk page archives it appears that previous editors basically addressed this topic. A RfC was conducted asking about merging the GM Company article into the GM Corporate article. The response was unanamous for merging "old" and "new" GM articles. [[1]] Springee (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the nature of that merge discussion. It was a discussion about merging an article called General Motors Company LLC into General Motors. Stockst (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This article, which is currently about "GM Company" dates back to 2004 and at the time of the RfC was clearly about GM Corp. At the time a new article about GM Company had been created. The unanimous consensus was the corp and company articles should be merged. What you are proposing is to undo that merge. That would require significant discussion and buy in to revert the earlier decision. Springee (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Springee, you stated "What you are proposing is to undo that merge." I don't recall ever making such a proposal. Could you please elaborate on this? Stockst (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Stockst: you seem fixated that the MLC article and the GM article should strictly reflect their respective legal entities, and the result is a mess. I'd argue that the vast majority of readers would expect an article titled General Motors to talk about a car manufacturer, regardless of the legal handover between old and new GM – while they would expect Motors Liquidation Company to talk about a company liquidator that deals with bankruptcy issues. The MLC article after your today's edits is utterly confusing; I've reverted it per WP:BRD; such a wide-ranging rewriting and re-scoping needs a solid consensus before proceeding. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Deeday-UK, you stated that "The MLC article after your today's edits is utterly confusing". In what way is it confusing? If anything, I think I've reduced/removed confusion by explaining the company's history. As just one example, in its current state (after your reversion), the opening sentence states "Motors Liquidation Company (formerly General Motors Corporation) was the company left to settle past liability claims from Chapter 11 reorganization of American car manufacturer General Motors". In that sentence, "General Motors" refers to General Motors Corporation. However, the article currently links to General Motors, which suggests incorrectly that General Motors Company went bankrupt in 2009. Furthermore, the clause "Motors Liquidation Company (formerly General Motors Corporation) was the company left to settle past liability claims from Chapter 11 reorganization of" implies that Motors Liquidation Company is a different company to "General Motors" when in fact Motors Liquidation Company and General Motors Corporation are the same company.

I also disagree with your assertion that I have "rewritten" and "re-scoped" the article. All I did was provide additional information about the subject. I kept nearly all of the previous content. I could understand your word choice if I had deleted substantial content, or if I had written about a topic other than Motors Liquidation Company, but that is obviously not the case. Could you explain why you've used the labels "rewritten" and "rescoped" when all I've done is added additional content? Stockst (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Stockst, by all means add all those corrections and clarifications to the MLC article, but please don't make it look like an article about a car manufacturer. MLC was conceived to manage the bankruptcy process, not to build cars – even if legally is the same entity founded in 1908. Example of possible opening line that addresses your points: When American car manufacturer General Motors went bankrupt in 2009, a decision was made to change its name from General Motors Corporation to Motors Liquidation Company, with a view of settling all liability claims and sell most of the assets to a "new GM", called General Motors Company. - or something like that. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, why not merge Motors Liquidation Company into General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization? That would avoid all this confusion and duplication. --Deeday-UK (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In 2009 editors decided that all three legal companies known commonly as General Motors would be covered in a common article. They didn't think it was a good idea to create a new GM Company article and keep this article (this one being GM Corp at the time). What you are doing is taking the LMC article and expanding it to cover the full history of the old GM Corp. So the LMC article is where we might find that Roger Smith created Saturn. By adding all that material, basically the GM history material you recently added to the LMC article, you are making it redundant here and presumably would remove it in the future. At that point we would have two GM articles, the LMC covering 100 years and the current 2009 and onward article. That is an effective reversal of the article merger. I agree with Deeday-UK, w can fix much of what is wrong without such a radical change. Springee (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Springee, I've opened a discussion for a merger that would solve the issue of duplication between the MLC and GM articles. Feel free to comment there. Deeday-UK (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This issue first came up in 2009, and has come up a few times since, often involving COI editing from representatives of the company. It's a tough call. "New GM" is a substantially smaller company than "Old GM" was. Many plants were sold off, brands were discontinued, there were layoffs, and the stockholders lost almost everything. The event should be treated as more of a change than it currently is. The article mentioned only coming out of bankruptcy, not going into it. I added one line to correct that. John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

John, I would suggest two things related to your recent edit. First, the language isn't particularly encyclopedic and second, while I know you are correct regarding shareholders, we need a source for the statement. Perhaps a sentence, added to the beginigng of the following sentence, along the lines of, "On Oct X 2009, after heavy losses (mention financial crisis or not?) GM filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. As part of the restructuring [the following groups] pension holders received X cents on the dollar, secured creditors received, bond holders received and shareholders received (with citations for all). I think a summary of who got paid and what is good summary information. It should probably be presented after the "GM emerged" date. Good call on the general addition. It looks like the material should be added to the Chapter 11 article as well. Springee (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Agree the treatment of the bankruptcy and bail-out is not proportional to treatment in reliable sources. For example, the treatment of the hydrogen power plant, which was never produced, is more prominent in this article than the bankruptcy and bail-out. This article reads as though it is important that our readers understand that the old GM and the new GM are one and the same. Thank you again. 13.112.65.233 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

The article has 21 (twenty-one) dead links in citations.

This template is used to mark an entire article, or a section of an article, as having many dead external links. It may be placed at the top of an article, if the article's sourcing problems are severe...This template will categorize tagged articles into Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations or a dated subcategory thereof. Template:Citations_broken

The template and the resulting categorization will help draw the attention of editors to improve the article.

It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied...A template should not be removed if any of the following applies: When the issue has not yet been resolved; - WP:MTR

13.112.65.233 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps our randomly concerned IP editor could try fixing the old links rather than simply dumping tags into the article. Springee (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is poorly sourced. For example,

• 21 dead links in citations
• 21 unsourced statements
• Five sections with no sources whatsoever
• three sources tagged with a request for a better source
• one source identified as unreliable
• content sourced to questionable sources including enthusiast websites and other online sources with no discernible editorial policy
• the noteworthiness (due weight) of content is obscured by an over-reliance on self-published sources such as the corporate website and press releases in lieu of reliable secondary and tertiary sources

Numerous high-quality secondary and tertiary sources are available on the subject of this article. For example, the article includes a "Further reading" section which identifies:

• two New York Times articles
• 15 book-length tertiary sources

These sources are not used to support any content in the article. We are asked to use the best available sources. The deficiencies of the sourcing of this article are in contrast to the richness of the available sources. 13.112.65.233 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This is excellent news! You have found some deficiencies in the article's references and have identified replacements for them. Wikipedia is open to all editors, so please let us know when you put these new references in. Thanks in advance!

I'd contemplate doing it myself but sadly, I don't have any of those books on my shelf. I'm pretty good at fixing dead links from archives though, so I can help out in that limited area.  Stepho  talk  08:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Update on evaluating the quality of the sourcing of this article.

• Unsourced
  • 20 unsourced statements
  • 5 sections with no sources whatsoever
  • 1 source identified as unreliable
• Poorly sourced
  • 3 sources tagged with a request for a better source and other content sourced to questionable sources including enthusiast websites and other online sources with no discernible editorial policy
  • the due weight of content is unclear due to an over-reliance on self-published sources such as the corporate website and press releases without support from reliable secondary and tertiary sources
  • numerous high-quality secondary and tertiary sources are available but not integrated into the article, including but not limited to the 2 articles and 15 books listed in the "Further reading" section of this article
  • 2 dead links in citations

34.251.129.57 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting to us what the wiki tags tell us about the quality of the article's references. Since you are not satisfied with the work done, we will immediately refund to you twice the amount of money you have paid us. Furthermore, we also give you permission to work on the article, hopefully improving on the work of the previous editors.  Stepho  talk  21:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

The lead inadequately summarizes the article.

The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight...The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents...The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic...Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. - WP:LEAD

According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. - MS:INTRO

Currently the article is 119,268 bytes long. Most of the article is not summarized in the lead. The following sections and subsections are not summarized in the lead:

3 Corporate governance
    3.1 Financial results
5 Motorsports
6 Research and development
7 Small car sales
8 Environmental initiatives
    8.1 Hybrid electric vehicles
    8.2 All-electric vehicles
    8.3 Battery packs for electric vehicles
    8.4 Hydrogen initiative
    8.5 Flexible-fuel vehicles
9 Philanthropy
    10.2 Former subsidiaries
    10.3 Current affiliates
    10.4 Former affiliates
    10.5 Spin-offs
11 Controversies
    11.1 Ralph Nader and the Corvair
    11.2 Defective ignition system investigation

The lead summarizes all of the article. If a section is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the body then a summary in the lead is due. 13.112.65.233 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — 13.112.65.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could you propose a new introduction that summarizes the article better? Felsic2 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. MS:INTRO asks editors to collaborate to resolve a discrepancy in emphasis between the lead and the body; generally, such a discrepancy may be resolved by expanding the lead, trimming the body, or both. This article exhibits multiple editorial issues. For example, about 1/3 of the article is devoted to the environmental initiatives of the subject of the article. The article includes a long list of secondary and tertiary reliable sources in a "further reading" section that are not summarized in the article, yet the article has 20 dead links in citations and 21 citation needed tags and relies on citation to "about.com." The article includes sections with no prose consisting entirely of an embedded list MOS:EMBED. These editorial issues obscure accurate assessments of due weight. Collaboration on adjusting the lead to better summarize the body is needed, but may be premature at this time WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Thank you again. 13.112.65.233 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what solution you're actually proposing. Sure, it'd be great to fix the whole article before tackling the intro, but an article like this may never be completely fixed. Some content may have poor sources but still be a logical part of the article and presumably better sources exist. So that material could still be summarized in the intro in the meantime. As for which to improve first, it's probably always an incremental process. Can you suggest a paragraph to add which would go towards making a better intro? Felsic2 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

World's largest time frame

@BjörnBergman:, My apologies for appearing to revert your change without a talk page comment as you did contact me after you reverted the revert. I typed this first, thought I hit save, made the edits then realized I had closed the talk page post. Sorry about the lag in posting the explanation. I understand your concern and I recall seeing such claims outside of Wikipedia. However, your edit has two issues. First, you removed two reliable sources that support the 2007 claim. You made it clear your source was another Wikipedia article. Per WP:RS [[2]] we can't cite other Wikipedia articles. If the other Wiki article has supporting sources then we need to add those sources to the GM article. We shouldn't remove RS'ed content then replace it with non-sourced content. This is especially true since we have at least two sources that support the claim. Second, the article you cited [[3]] has sourcing issues. The 2007 chart [[4]] cites a source that says GM was largest in 2007 [[5]]. An editor decided to group Toyota with Daihatsu and Hino. Since the source doesn't do that it would be a problem with WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. If you can find an article that groups those brands and supports the 2005 claim then we should add it. Since reliable sources support the 2007 claim we would want to add both claims and explain the difference. Again, sorry for getting this up after the article changes vs before as I had intended. Springee (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit was based on numbers from oica.net. According to OICA, G.M. was surpassed by Toyota for first time in 2006. Why Toyota is listed as No.2 is because there have been a mistake; when listing Toyota's production number, they have not included the numbers of Daihatsu and Hino which are member brands of Toyota, they have listed Toyota, Daihatsu and Hino separately rather than together and usually, that is incorrect. If listed together, the total production number of these three manufacturers together is higher than the production number of G.M. so usually G.M. is ranked 2 and Toyota ranked 1 in 2006 and 2007.

Perhaps several sources say G.M. was largest in 2006 and 2007 but according to OICA, that is wrong. In which way is OICA an unreliable source???

Another example is Ford. Ford is listed as the 3rd largest automaker in 2004 but that's usually wrong. Ford was the 2nd largest, that was usually NOT Toyota. When showing Ford's production number as of 2004, they have not included the number of Mazda which at that time was a member brand of Ford, rather than listing Ford and Mazda together, OICA has listed them separately which usually is wrong. If listed together, the Ford Motor Company was larger than Toyota in 2004. Is this really strange? BjörnBergman 18:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue is we need to quote RSs. We had two RSs in the article that backed the 2007 number. You mentioned OICA but the results listed for 2006 [[6]] and 2007 [[7]] show GM as #1. Yes, you have made a convincing argument for why the results should be changed but as editors we have to let RS's do that for us. We can't decide that OIAC presented the data incorrectly. That would be WP:OR on our part. Combining the numbers to put Toyota ahead is WP:SYN. In a case like this what we should do is report what the source says (GM #1 in 2006 and 2007) then cite RSs that note the discrepancy (say a NYTs article that says by some counts Toyota surpassed GM in 2005 vs 2007). You should be able to find such information but since the 2007 number has been widely reported we can't just ignore it nor can we assume OIAC should have combined makes in ways they didn't in their actual reports. Springee (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is in the definition of what to count. Some sources count only passenger cars and others count all vehicles (large trucks, pickups, vans). Some count subsidiaries (eg Toyota vs Daihatsu and Hino) and some don't. Some count CKD (Complete Knock Down) kits and some don't. So if we take one source from say The New York Times for Toyota's production figures and then take another source, say OICA, for GM, then we are probably not comparing apples with apples. We must take numbers from only a single source or from sources that count in the same manner. So far, the Automobile Project has agreed that OICA is a good single source. It is a professional body run by the auto industry itself, publishes yearly (although much delayed), is not prone to exaggeration or hyperbole (unlike most newspaper sources), is not biased towards or against particular countries (again, unlike most newspaper sources). To say that OICA has counted wrong is merely saying that they didn't count in the same way that your source counted. Neither way of counting is particularly better in all situations but consistency in how and what to count is paramount.  Stepho  talk  02:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

In this case the OICA is the agreed, reliable data source. My concern is the way the OICA's raw data is regrouped to present a ranking that conflicts with that in OICA reports. Such regroupings are a violation of WP:OR (no outside sources saying we should do this) and WP:SYN (shuffling the data to change report results). This is a problem in this article (Toyota passing GM in 2005 vs 2007) and in the vehicle production article (exp Toyota as #1 in 2006[[8]] while citing the OICA report that shows GM as #1 [[9]]). Springee (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Going back to the yearly summary reports from OICA:

Calendar year	Manufacturer rank#1	Manufacturer rank#2	-Reference
2005	GM (9 097 855)	Toyota (7 338 314)	http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/worldranking2005.pdf
2006	GM (8,965,305)	Toyota (8,036,010)	http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/world-ranking-2006-july-08.pdf
2007	GM (9,349,818)	Toyota (8,534,690)	http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/world-ranking-2007.pdf
2008	Toyota (9,237,780)	GM (8,282,803)	http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/world-ranking-2008.pdf

The summary reports show GM as #1 in 2005-2007. However, as @BjörnBergman: points out, Toyota, Daihatsu and Hino are listed separately but if added together then they outweighed GM for the first time in 2006. The question then is do we follow OICA in listing Toyota, Daihatsu and Hino separately or do we lump them together? My take is that OICA is the official body of the auto industry. Presumably it would be in Toyota's interest to get the #1 title and use it to the hilt for marketing. Yet the OICA report does not so until 2008, which is when the combined Toyota+Daihatsu+Hino became #1. Why did OICA change the grouping in 2008? I don't know. Perhaps it was the percentage of shares that Toyota own in Daihatsu and Hino reached a limit in 2008. Or perhaps OICA changed its policies in general in 2008. Nevertheless, the figures above are official and any change to them must be qualified (eg GM was #1 in 2006 but Toyota, Daihatsu and Hino combined outsold them in that year). You then get the joy of also listing GM's shares interest in other manufactures (eg Isuzu and Subaru) to see if some other combination puts GM back on top again. Then we can see if Toyota has other interests (eg Subaru) that might put it back on top again. Gets complicated doesn't it. Much better to just take the OICA numbers as-is.  Stepho  talk  00:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's best to simply report what OICA says without additional interpretation. Springee (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Toyota, Daihatsu and Hino are listed together in the statistics of 2001 and 2002, which means Toyota owned that two brand already then. As all of these three are members of the Toyota group, I think its more correct to base statistics and rankings on the production of all three together rather than the production of every one separately. BjörnBergman 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If you follow the stats from 1998 onwards, you will see that OICA sometimes groups them together and sometimes not.

Calendar year	Grouping	Reference
1998	Toyota+Daihatsu, Hino	http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/cl98cons2.pdf
1999	Toyota+Daihatsu, Hino	http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/cl99cons2.pdf
2000	Toyota+Daihatsu+Hino	http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/worldranking2000.pdf
2001	Toyota+Daihatsu+Hino	http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/worldranking2001.pdf
2002	Toyota+Daihatsu+Hino	http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Worldranking2002.pdf
2003	Toyota, Daihatsu, Hino	http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Worldranking2003.pdf

You can see that in 1998-1999 Hino was kept separate, then all joined together 2000-2002 then all split up in 2003. My guess would be that it is based on how many shares Toyota held in the other two at the time but there may by different reasons. Yet this is the industry accepted practice of how things are recorded. It is not up to us to decide how to group them when the industry itself accepts OICA's grouping. To do our own grouping is violating WP's WP:SYN policy. If we feel like grouping Toyota different to OICA then we can also start arguing over which companies can be included with GM. Do we include companies that GM owns minor shares in? Do we include companies that are owned by other companies that GM owns shares in? Do we add the full amount of these included companies or only a percentage based on shares ownership? You are opening a huge, complicated can of worms where we can synthesise data and rankings on demand by deciding who can be grouped together and how. Your method will bring in endless WP debates over who can be grouped with who to get whatever ranking an editor wants.

You also changed the ranking on the Toyota article when you knew this discussion was going on. Better not to change from the status quo during discussion. Your changes to Toyota also violated the WP WP:BRD policy by reinstating a controversial edit without entering discussion. Talk first. If you make a good argument then your edit will reinstated anyway.  Stepho  talk  22:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

When reading this, you see Daihatsu and Hino WERE counted as Toyota affiliates as of 2003/2004 though OICA lists them separately rather than together. According to this source, Toyota (including Daihatsu and Hino) overtook Ford as the 2nd largest automaker in 2003. However, OICA lists Ford as No.2 and Toyota (without Daihatsu and Hino) as No.3. But Ford's 2003 sales do not include Mazda's sales though Mazda at that time WAS a affiliate of Ford which owned about a third of it. This means Daihatsu and Hino SHOULD be included in Toyota as well as Mazda SHOULD be included in Ford before 2009. Toyota including Daihatsu and Hino produced more vehicles than GM for first time in 2006, NOT 2008, and more vehicles than Ford (including Mazda) in 2005, according to OICA. BjörnBergman 22:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, almost everything you said proves my point.

1. How do we know that The New York Times is counting things the same way every time they report on it? Are this years reporters getting their data from the same sources as last year? Are their reporters getting the same type of data from each company? Are they just using the data that each company hands out - even if the companies count differently? Did they count things the same way as they did the last time they reported it? Did they count things the same way that OICA did? Did they count things the same way that Bloomberg did? Did they count things the same they The Wall Street Journal did? We cannot take some articles from one source and some from another source because we don't know if they count things the same way.
2. Ford owned 33.3% of Mazda shares (according to the Mazda article). Does this make Mazda a subsidiary of Ford? Does this means Ford owns Mazda? I'm not a corporate lawyer and I suspect you aren't either. I would be very surprised if OICA hadn't run their definitions of owned, subsidiary, affiliate, etc thorough a battery of lawyers - both their own and for the companies involved. Simply put - I don't trust you (or myself) to say that Ford owns Mazda. I do trust OICA to say if Ford owns Mazda.
3. If OICA choose to group some companies together and not others then it is most likely based on some criteria such as percentage of shares owned. It is not up to us to say that they group one set of companies therefore we can group some others. Admittedly, it would be useful if we knew how OICA did its grouping and on what basis.
4. You are synthesising results. The data does not support you because the data lists them in different groupings than you do.

When reporting things such as rankings we must use the same sources for all the articles, not choose one source for one article and another source that counts differently for another article - ie comparing apples with apples. We can only report the results as given to us - we can not regroup them and add up the totals in ways that the source did not mean to come up with different rankings - ie no synthesising of results.  Stepho  talk  01:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

How should we put this in the article?

Prior to the change to a "largest through 2005" version, the article cited two RS's for the "77 years through 2007" claim. Neither were the OICA. While I agree the OICA is the best source for the raw data, it would only support the "largest through 2007" and "77 year" claims if we cited 77 years worth of reports. Given the article's are consistent with the OICA data should we just leave them as is (was). Should we add OICA 2007 and 2008 reports which would show GM as #1 in '07 but #2 in '08? Anyway, we have had a lot of discussion regarding the OICA as the "best" source for this data but the statements in the article represent an interpretation of the data and I don't think we actually have OICA data spanning back to the time when GM passed Ford. My personal take is the issue is trivial and we should use references that make the "through 2007" and "77 year" claim. I don't see a clean way to add the OICA reports. Springee (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, lacking input I restored the article using the previous references for the 2007 date. They aren't the OICA data but they agree with OICA tables. Springee (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've posted the question at NORN [10]] Springee (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Prose

This article includes five sections that consist exclusively of embedded lists:

1. 10.1 Discontinued brands
2. 10.2 Former subsidiaries
3. 10.3 Current affiliates
4. 10.4 Former affiliates
5. 10.5 Spin-offs

Prose is preferred as per WP:PROSE. These sections lack a lead paragraph WP:LEADEMBEDDEDLIST. Three of these embedded lists have no references whatsoever, and the other two include unreferenced content. The lack of prose and lack of citation to noteworthy reliable sources frustrates the accurate assessment of the noteworthiness of this content. 34.251.129.57 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

GM PSA sale

Should we wait for the transaction to be completed before we mark various brands as "former" etc? See changes such as [[11]] and [[12]] Springee (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Article hit by vandal, and not noticed.

Someone deleted various numbers from the article, leaving nothing.[13] Seems to be a IP vandal. There have been edits since, and I don't want to revert that far back. Not yet fixed. John Nagle (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I restored the numbers. Thanks for the heads up! Springee (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)