Talk:IBM

Added detail from Rometty at Council on Foreign Relations

See Rometty, Ginni (March 11, 2013). "A Conversation with Ginni Rometty". Transcript. Council on Foreign Relations.

Quote in context: I think they're the new normal. And you know, we've got 430,000 people; 50 percent or so have been with us less than five years. So you see another — and in some cases it's generational; you see a millennial generation out there, and how they work and what they do differently, and every one of us are going to — the next workforce, it — well, you know, you see it if — around you, right? I don't tell you something you don't know. And so these phenomena absolutely change how people think, how they work, how they want to work, how they're going to interact.

72.244.200.127 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a good addition for the Working at IBM section, but not appropriate for the lead (see WP:LEAD). —Eustress ^talk 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a better home for that detail. 72.244.204.34 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ANNO CANCELLATO QUELLO CHE O SCRITTO CHE NON PENSO CHE WUORH NON VUOLE AIUTARMI SONO FACEBOOK SEARH IL RESTO DEI COMMMMM TUTTI ABOBE E PIENO DI DOCUMENTI CHE LE ANNO DATO I PRESIDENTI PENSA PER LUI MILIARDI AL GIORNO RUBANDO LE IMMAGINI E MIE CONTRIBUTI SEARH LA STESSA COSA ANDRESSS VUOLE STARE TRIPLO MILIARDI AL GIORNO MILIARDI DI MESSAGGI SI PAGA DEI PRESIDENTI LA PISTA E MIA MAA I SOLDI SUOI I COMMMMSONO FALSI TUTTO MIO E RUBATO DA ME ANCHE NELLE FATTORIE FANNO GASTROMANZIE E MAFIA SU FACEBOOK LA VEDE TUTTO IL MONDO QUEL CANALE PERO' NON SANNO CHI SONO REALMENTE TUTTO INTERNET I MIEI FIGLI SONO IN MISERIA SONO SENZA UN CUORE ALMENO SE C'E L'ANNO E VELENO CHE ANNO DENTRO SONO STANZA DI DIRE LA STESSA COSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.245.78 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Phrase added to introduction

Since an editor, in apparent violation of WP:RV, has chosen to revert two versions of a WP:GOODFAITH change to the introduction, I thought I'd do what that editor hasn't: begin a discussion on the matter. Perhaps a few of the 400+ editors watching this article could comment.

The issue is this: Should the phrase "half of whom have been with the company for less than five years", based on a March 2013 quote from IBM's CEO, be reverted from the introduction:

IBM has 433,362 employees as of 2012, half of whom have been with the company for less than five years.[7] According to Fortune, IBM is the second-largest U.S. firm in number of employees;[2] it is also fourth largest in market capitalization,[8] the ninth most profitable,[9] and the #19 largest firm in terms of revenue.[10] Globally, the company was ranked the #31 largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011.[11][12] Other rankings for 2011/2012 include #1 company for leaders (Fortune), #1 green company worldwide (Newsweek), #2 best global brand (Interbrand), #2 most respected company (Barron's), #5 most admired company (Fortune), and #18 most innovative company (Fast Company).[13]

I see no problem with that phrase being in the introduction. 72.244.206.5 (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the editor you're referring to above is me. Regarding the editing process here on enwp, note that I am following the standard process of WP:BRD, having reverted the addition in question and offered a rationale both in the edit summary and here on talk. (I did offer discussion of this issue in the section immediately above here.) If anyone's editing etiquette is problematic, it yours for re-adding the content when no community consensus supported such an action.

Regarding the removed text, as I alluded to previously, WP:LEAD states that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." I believe the phrase you are trying to add does not fit this guideline, as there is no significant discussion of workforce tenure in the body of the article, and workforce tenure is not a common lead item mentioned in the leads of other company articles on enwp. I, again, instead recommend you integrate the material into the Working at IBM section of the article. I hope that seems reasonable. —Eustress ^talk 18:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I waited a bit, to see if any additional editors cared to express an opinion, but I guess this is just an issue between us.

As an unregistered exopedian, my opinions cannot help be discounted due to my lack of interest in becoming a member of the community of editors. The odds are made worse due to your particular interest in this article, reflected in your edit statistics, which indicate you are the article's most active contributors with twice the number of major edits to the article as User:Ian Rose, who is second in the list.

Citing WP:BRD as a "standard process" seems inaccurate; lets call it what the community called it: a "supplemental" WP:essay. As an IP editor, my good faith edits have sometimes been hurriedly reverted by accident, so the essay espouses a practice that is easily misunderstood by an IP editor.

As it happens, I accidentally followed that essay's advice (WP:BRD#Revert), which is to "try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can". Instead of reverting my edit, and thus implicitly requiring me to try a third time to guess what your individual expectations are, could you take a stab at moving what I've tried to contribute? 72.244.200.81 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed reference to an "American multinational" company

IBM was founded in the US, but less than 1/5 of IBMs workforce is currently based in the US. Perhaps there is a more accurate way to reference IBM's American past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Tog (talk • contribs) 3 July 2013

The above unsigned comment was apparently added on 3 July 2013‎ by Mister Tog, describing an edit to the main article on the same date by the same user. Comments: 1. Please observe the guidelines noted above, "Please sign and date your posts" and "Put new text under old text." 2. I'm not sure that the above rationale is sufficient to support the notion that IBM is not an American multinational and that it's status as an American company is merely a thing of the past. I would contend that the original wording is (a) still factual, (b) consistent with WP:LEAD, and (c) consistent with the current wording of the lead sentences in the articles for other large American multinationals (such as ExxonMobil, P&G, 3M, and Boeing). My suggestion is to revert the edit to restore the original wording, but I will wait for other opinions before making any change. -- HLachman (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning more on the side of exclusion of the word "American". What makes a company "American"? If it's location of HQ, then IBM would be American. If it's majority headcount, then it's not. —Eustress ^talk 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't entirely cut and dried in the corporate world nowadays. But I think it's clear that a company that is founded, incorporated and remains headquartered in a country is indeed of that nationality. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. The only justification given for the edit is that if a company has majority headcount outside a certain country, it can no longer be identified as being "of" that country. This premise would imply, for example, that if I started and ran my company in, say, France, with 499 French employees in France (including all executives, finance, product development, manufacturing, etc.), plus 300 telephone support personnel in India and Philippines, plus 10 salespersons per country in 20 other countries, then it could no longer be called a French company. If that's what the premise implies, it seems unlikely that it could be considered an acceptable standard among relevant experts and professionals (such as in corporate law or relevant public policy circles), but if it is, please share. Until then, we have two in favor of reverting, one "leaning" against, and the original editor who has not come back to comment on the revert. So I reverted it. -- HLachman (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

2012 revenue

Annual revenue for 2012 is available and should be updated in the sidebar. Not sure why all the other numbers up-to-date except that one. SimonSage84 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-competitive behavior

Any particular reason zero mention of their initial anti-competitive behavior with Microsoft is listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.181.217 (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Section on typewriters needed?

By the late '60's and early'70's IBM Selectric typewriters in both ball and later daisy wheel configurations had become a standard in most businesses, schools, law enforcement, government, etc. offices. The word ubiquitous comes to mind.  Shouldn't there be at least a short section on these typewriters?2602:306:BDC0:CF90:75D1:7D75:2484:7FD0 (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

expand from "In the late 1970s..." to include the 1980s as well (see supporting Wikipedia sources)

The article says: "In the late 1970s" "In the late 1970s, IBM underwent some internal convulsions between those in management wanting to concentrate on their bread-and-butter mainframe business, and those wanting the company to invest heavily in the emerging personal computer industry."

Wikipedia sources list: The IBM Personal Computer Disk Operating System was was sold as a DOS system for the IBM Personal Computer and compatibles, sold by IBM from the 1980s to the 2000s. IBM model number 5150 was introduced on August 12, 1981. IBM PC DOS 1.0 released with the IBM PC on August 1981. The IBM Machine Type number 5160 was released on March 8, 1983 The Personal System/2 or PS/2 was IBM's third generation of personal computers released in 1987.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_DOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_DOS#History

IBMs participation in the creation of the term "IBM PC compatible" is clearly documented in Wikipedia. Links can help the readers. Billgdiaz (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)