Talk:General Electric: Difference between revisions
HagermanBot (talk | contribs) m 68.38.196.212 didn't sign: "→RfD: Not notable: RfD Request" |
|||
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
:Here you are: http://www.ge.com/nz/ -- [[User:Lostintherush|<font color="olive">'''Lost'''</font>]][[User talk:Lostintherush|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
:Here you are: http://www.ge.com/nz/ -- [[User:Lostintherush|<font color="olive">'''Lost'''</font>]][[User talk:Lostintherush|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
== |
== AfD: Not notable == |
||
Amazing how you omniscient Wikipedia people (individually!) have a comprehensive index on what's notable in every sector of the human experience. If you're a Wikipedia admin and you say it's not notable (i.e. you're ignorant to it) it must be crap! Who needs Wikipedia to enumerate the sum of all human knowledge when we could just ask the individual admins? |
Amazing how you omniscient Wikipedia people (individually!) have a comprehensive index on what's notable in every sector of the human experience. If you're a Wikipedia admin and you say it's not notable (i.e. you're ignorant to it) it must be crap! Who needs Wikipedia to enumerate the sum of all human knowledge when we could just ask the individual admins? |
Revision as of 08:38, 11 January 2007
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General Electric article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
- talk page archive
"In addition, we can't add a category for every industry GE is involved with."
Why not? I thought this was exactly why we had categories. Whether GE is "an electronics company" is a separate issue... but certainly GE should be included in any category in which it is an important company. Shouldn't it? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Do you realize how many categories that would add? It is better to categorize each individual division, rather than the main company. And GE doesn't really manufacture electronics per se anymore, they have mostly sold off those groups, or they are just servile to an encompassing division. Just because you see General Electric-branded items in the store doesn't mean that they are produced by GE. It would be the same thing as saying that AT&T produces telephones, when they haven't for about a decade. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
"Do you realize how many categories that would add?" Sure. GE isn't exactly just any old company. Well, OK, no, I don't know how many categories it would add, but I'd guess between 20 and 100. But, you know, it's not my fault that GE is a giant in so many industries. Again, what exactly is the problem with adding a lot of categories? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- It'd be a huge list. Anyhow, categorize the divisions, not the parent company. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should include as much a possible, that is what the whole wikipedia is all about. Plus it does seem a bit biased towards the good(relative term) GE Companies. "We bring good things to life.", also includes the GE M134 Minigun. - BatGnat 23:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Improvement Drive
Thomas Edison has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for this article and help improve it to featured status. --Fenice 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
GE Electric in Australia?
Is GE Electric in Australia?? I haven't seen their products anywhere. I can't believe such a huge company could not exist here. Davez621 10:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's fair to say that GE is pretty much in every country, even if you don't see them under their own name. Anyhow, http://www.ge.com/au/. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
GE does exist, Friges, ovens, microwaves can be found more, and more often. For a long time there was virtually no market share for GE products, I.E. you could only find them if you knew where to look. The most well known business is GE Capital Finance, which has formed a near monopoly on the "6 months interest free" finance in stores, after puchasing AVCO (Australia/New Zealand) and AGC Credit. - BatGnat 23:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Headline text
aEWR
Brand
Where is the source that GE's brand is the most recognized in the world? I don't doubt this, however, it does not take a neutral stance in its current status without sources. KansasCity 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Ecomagination?
Should Ecomagination be added to this article? After all, GE's new direction to being "green" company is pretty significant move IMHO.
- Yes, I think its one of the biggest initiatives by GE right now, apart from NPS. It should be added... ramit 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Since when is an ad saying that they are for the environment a "new direction?" When did they say they were opposed to clean air and water?
It wouldn't make sense to go into the ad campaign without some estimation of whether it is more than skin-deep.
Has GE solved the nuclear waste issue? Despite GE's own declarations of safety, there is still argument regarding whether the current temporary waste storage pools are uniformly safe from terrorist attack. Meanwhile the Yucca Mountain storage facility is at stalemate.
Have all questions regarding the safety of GE's third-world nuclear power plants been satisfactorily resolved? I've read accusations that they've cut corners on containment for some less expensive facilities, and that some plants are dangerously located near fault lines.
I am not speaking to the validity of these points. I came to this entry seeking some answers regarding them, and I see none. A balanced and objctive appraisal of these issues would be a good addition. But the "ecomagination" campaign alone is no more earth-shaking than Coke having a new jingle.71.48.59.67 04:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, here are a few links: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Most of these are from notable environment friendly third parties. Infact i tried to find criticism of the initiative, but could not find any. Its a fact that GE has pledged actual big money on this initiative. It will be great to hear the other side of the story from somebody who knows, though.. -- Lost 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Original Dow member?
Following the link to the Dow Jones history shows that it is not among the 12 original members. jhhays
- I checked the link. It clearly mentions that besides General Electric, the other 11 members were... Maybe the edit was done after your remark ramit 07:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Subsidiary
The subsidiary page needs updation. GE is now divided in only six industries which are further divided in various product/ industry groups... ramit 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok... I have made the changes. The updated list of businesses is directly from the GE website. I have also give the link to that... ramit 07:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No mention of GECIS or GENPACT
Doesn't any of the editors think that there should be a mention of GECIS or GENPACT in the article, Especially in the History section, when you have the GENWORTH spinoff list there. --202.63.114.107 10:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since this article is not about Genpact, it's mention should come under history. See acquisitions below too. Same logic here too. Vivek 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Acquisitions
I know that many of the acquisitions that get listed here are large, but let's face it: GE is a huge and they acquire and divest a lot of companies. To list every single one would dominate this article. I think we need to exercise caution with regard to what we list. Perhaps the solution is to keep it to the most important ones (eg. RCA, Universal) and form a separate article with a timeline. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. With the number of acquisitions and divestments, it would make sense to have a separate article listing all with a timeline. This article should have only a passing mention of these. Lost 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I created General Electric timeline as a start. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Really ugly template
Please see the discussion at Template talk:General Electric#All of GE media. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Logo
Has GE's logo ever changed? I've seen relaly old logos exactly the same as they are now. Maybe someone can find some info on this.--Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- GE has changed its logos very often. Though it has always been a variant of the meatball. There is a link somewhere on the GE site giving all the logos chronologically. I will try to find it and place it here for you. -- Lost 03:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Update:Sorry couldnt find the evolution on the site. But I have definitely seen a ppt of it somewhere. Maybe you could try out www.gebrandcentral.com. But it needs a password which you can request if you have a genuine use -- Lost 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit the sidebar, but right now it says that GE has revenue of 149 Trillion dollars. Come on, wikipedia, you're not even trying sometimes.
Controversy
I find it amazing and sketchy that so many entries in Wikipedia offer a final "Controversy", "Disputed", "Discprepency" or "Critical Criticisms" heading under most categories. While I understand the argument for not wanting to add all the companies that G.E. owns, I feel that as a matter of Wikipedia remaining a pure factual dictionary, refusing to atleast have some type of "disputed" entry about actual owned comapnies that show that this company is not just an "electric conglomerate", and steps into the realm of defense contractor makes me feel sad that Wikipedia is slowly becoming controlled by big business. There have been many critics of G.E. and none are mentioned here, is that not a curious thing? Even the most untaouchable entries that are turned into "log in to edit only" entries still have a counter point. Is this not a fair comment? Does G.E. pay a webmaster to specifically monitor their "wiki" page to keep it "clean"? I guess we will see how long this stays up here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.173.42 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- My fellow editor, you seem to misunderstand the nature of this encyclopedia. First of all, it is a wiki. If you would like to, wikipedia:citing sources, add a criticisms section, you may go ahead and do so. Secondly, we have a policy called Neutral Point of View. Articles are not kept "clean;" they include whatever reasonable information our editors add to them. An editor in the employ of GE will not succeed for very long in biasing this article in favor of his or her company. Thirdly, There is no cabal. Picaroon9288•talk 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I've created a Controversy category, I've retitled this section and will use it to address Jules7484's edit. If you can provide a reference [i.e. other big conglomerates who have paid 9-figure settlements for their polluting], I think your addition will improve NPOV. However, in the absence of a reference, it comes across as special pleading. Ribonucleic 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Why did Boeing switch to GE/CFM from Pratt& Whitney?
Does anybody know the real reason? 62.118.129.225 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
New Zeland???
Hey what about New Zeland???? Is GE also there in New Zeland too???? If so can you give me the link would fine with it too. Thanks. Rencin Matthew. rencin24 rencin24 06:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here you are: http://www.ge.com/nz/ -- Lost(talk) 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
AfD: Not notable
Amazing how you omniscient Wikipedia people (individually!) have a comprehensive index on what's notable in every sector of the human experience. If you're a Wikipedia admin and you say it's not notable (i.e. you're ignorant to it) it must be crap! Who needs Wikipedia to enumerate the sum of all human knowledge when we could just ask the individual admins?
- How could you say a company founded by Thomas Edison, now with 330,000 employees worldwide isn't notable? Arx Fortis 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- So Wikipedians say: I am not intimately familiar with it, therefore it is not notable. The article on my company Chapter Zero was deleted with similar reasoning. I'm just trying to keep Wikipedia guideline enforcement consistent. If no one objects I'm going to mark this as RfD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.196.212 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Analyst Coverage
What's with the analyst coverage section? It makes no sense to have this in the article. None of the analysts are linked to anything (internal or external). The Yahoo link doesn't seem appropriate. Should this section be removed? ++ Arx Fortis 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. If there was some actual coverage, it would make sense. Right now it doesnt. — Lost(talk) 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
General Electric Founder
On GE's website, Thomas Edison is listed as the company's sole founder. What do you know that GE doesn't? Obadiaha 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- 1) That what Edison founded was the Edison General Electric Company, not the General Electric Company, which was the result of a later merger;
- 2) That corporation websites are there to promote the company, not to provide historically accurate information, and often present slightly colorful but not strictly accurate versions of the company's origin; and that GE may well know more than they choose to present on their website;
- 3) That numerous sources agree with what our article says; for example,
Toomey, Daniel P. (1892), Massachusetts of Today: A Memorial of the State, Historical and Biographical, Columbia Publishing Company, p. 542: "The recent consolidation of the Edison with the Thomson-Houston Company, as the General Electric, has increased this giant industry."