Talk:Gibson Guitar Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guitarists / Guitar equipment  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Guitar equipment task force.
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Life[edit]

Let me start off by saying I plan to take this page on as of now. Gibson USA (which is the closest thing to an official name I have found) has a wiki on their web site with a wealth of information we can cite and use after digesting it to fit within the scope of a more layman's encyclopedia and make it less guitar geekish. I will begin poring over it and bringing what we can over while using it to cite and clean up what we have here. Here's the link Gibson Wiki Who's with me? --Drmartini 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


There's quite a lot of disambiguation material on this page now. I think it's time we sorted it out properly: either primary-topic disambiguation with Gibson about the guitars and Gibson (disambiguation) as a clearing-house for other Gibsons, or equal disambiguation with Gibson as a disambiguation page and the guitars moved to another page (Gibson Guitar Corp or Gibson (guitars)).

The main advantage of primary-topic disambiguation is that most links to Gibson on Wikipedia are likely to refer to the guitars: the cocktail is an unusual variant of the martini, appliances are not exactly cultural touchstones, and links to the people of that name are likely to be written with the appropriate forename: William Gibson (which is itself a disambiguation page), Mel Gibson, Debbie Gibson. Many pages about guitarists refer to their preferred brands and models and linking to Gibson is quite natural. With primary-topic disambiguation, Wikipedians writing about guitarists would be able to continue to refer to their "Gibson guitars" without having to make a piped link.

The potential advantage of equal disambiguation is that people searching Wikipedia for "Gibson" may be looking for people of that name, though I think they're more likely to be looking for the guitars than the refrigerators. They would end up with a simple menu of all the relevant choices rather than having to click through to the Gibson (disambiguation) page.

Or maybe I'm wrong and having four (or more, once someone adds Mel and Debbie, and indeed Orville) lines of disambiguation stuff at the top isn't a problem at all. At the moment, I would prefer primary-topic disambiguation with all the other Gibsons sent to Gibson (disambiguation). What do you think?

--rbrwr± 10:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Argh. It's been changed to an equal disambig now, and I can't see the point. Just look at what links to the page; one link to the guitar makers after another. Sorting this out won't be easy, not to mention we didn't do it well; however it was managed, my comments below are still here, from when this was still a primary-topic place. I vote for primary-topic. Deltabeignet 22:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't me who did the disambig, and I certainly understand why you reverted it back, but now there are two articles with the same info on them, and you could have done something about that. . . . . . see Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. I'll do it, but just for future reference, any editor (i.e. you and me) can and should take care of cleanup stuff like this. Soundguy99 22:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for working that out; sorry about leaving it as is (just got the Crossroads Guitar Festival DVD, and I haven't been paying much attention to the rest of the world). Deltabeignet 19:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Fender vs. Gibson[edit]

As I've mentioned on the Fender talk page, I'm thinking about a page dedicated to the Fender-Gibson rivalry. It'll have stuff on solid-body vs. hollow-body, basses, amps, and that kind of thing. Does it sound useful, and what should I call it if so?Deltabeignet 01:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-but will there be another page on the intense Squier-Epiphone rivalry?

Hmmmmmm. . . . . . my first question would be how much verifiable info is out there about a genuine business rivalry between the two companies? My impression from various things I've read is that maybe in the early 50's when the electric guitar market was pretty small the two companies might have gone gunning for each other, but once the Beatles hit the whole market grew so fast that there was no real "rivalry" - both companies had all the business they could handle. If the article would just wind up as basically an argument between two guitar players over which is "better", then there's no point.

Another point is that your "vs." examples don't seem to really divide the two companies, or at least one company so overwhelms the other one that no real "rivalry" can be said to exist. Examples:

  • Both companies produce solid-bodies (Strat vs. Les Paul) but Fender's never really had a viable or popular hollow-body, whereas Gibson's had several.
  • Fender's also never had any real presence in acoustic guitars, while Gibson's got several important models.
  • OTOH the Fender P-bass and Jazz bass have run rings (in sales, popularity and notability) around any bass that Gibson's ever put out.
  • And Fender also dominates the amp market. Some early Gibson tube amps have become collectible, but I think they pretty much gave up on the amp business about 1975.

I'm not saying it's a horrible idea, necessarily, just raising some questions about format and content. You might want to work on this in your User space before putting it out into the general Wikipedia, so it doesn't get put up on VfD before you have a chance to improve it. If you do work on it there and would like me to take a look at it, let me know on my talk page. Soundguy99 22:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The competition has always been so nuanced and unique, it seems like a shame not to give it a page. I'll see what I can do (though I still don't know what to call it.). Deltabeignet 19:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

this is kind of redundant, its like comparing hip hop to rock, they are two completely different things with different sounds and have different purposes and uses. --AlexOvShaolin 01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think much of the current "rivalry" seems to be as much an invention of the consumers as it is a legitimate competition between the two companies. I'm sure that at some point (the beginning) they both had it out for each other's throats, but I really don't see Gibson being all that concerned about Fender somehow sneaking up from behind and cornering the "single-cutaway with humbuckers" market. I think it's as much brand loyalty and preference for certain features as it is anything else. As has been stated above, Gibson seems to be content to let Fender dominate the amplifier and bass guitar market, and Fender doesn't seem to mind Gibson's acoustic and hollowbody sales too much. Occasionally I will notice a guitar model (mostly Squiers) that seems to be aimed at a consumer who probably wouldn't normally go for that brand. The Squier M-80 seems to have some suspiciously Gibson-like features for a Fender product, and I remember a Squier from a couple years ago (I think they've stopped selling it by now) that looked, to me, to be a very budget-oriented version of Kirk Hammett's ESP model, but none of it seems to go much further than trying to grab a couple extra customers. I guess my biggest concern about the idea is that a lot of it seems to be a matter of opinion. Also, this isn't exactly the Pepsi Challenge; I'd liken it more to the idea that Applebee's and Burger King might secretly be competing - just two companies doing very different things and aiming towards some pretty specific markets of their own - and, for the most part, ignoring each other. intooblv 05:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about all of that. Intooblv certainly made some solid points which prove that this topic might not warrant an entire article. However it could certainly be mentioned in the history, if not as its own subhead.--drmartini 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Move/change redirect[edit]

Currently, the article Gibson Guitar Corporation redirects to Gibson, where the actual article is. I think that, for consistency with the rest of Wikipedia, that the article content should be moved to "Gibson Guitar Corporation" (with a redirect to this from "Gibson Guitars" and "Gibson Guitar"), and the "Gibson" page should redirect to Gibson (disambiguation). I think this require an administrator to pull this off, or maybe I'm just too dumb. Comments? Realkyhick 19:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support move, obviously - the guitar company is not the overwhelmingly most common meaning. Also move Gibson (disambiguation) to Gibson. sjorford (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support per sjorford, assuming this is the official name of the company, which it is unclear whether it is.—jiy (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a good point - I've dug around on but they just seem to call themselves Gibson, or possibly Gibson Musical Instruments. sjorford (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the pages per consensus above. Izehar 23:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought we were still debating it??? sjorford (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Artists who play Gibsons[edit]

Might I suggest that we link directly to artists pages from this section, not just their bands? SnakeSeries 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to start a new topic, but it should be noted in the introduction that Peter Townshend of The Who also played SG's almost exclusively for a time.

It's probably time to create a separate page: List of guitarists who use Gibson guitars. Anyone disagree? --Blahm 22:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW don't they teach the alphabet to kids anymore? Is it that hard to insert the artist's name in the correct alphabetical order? Maybe with a list it'll be more ordered,
Sorry, couldn't help myself. It's done: List of artists who use Gibsons

Gibson Serial Numbers[edit]

I removed the Gibson serial numbers link:

because when linked it redirects to the store's home page. Curiously, when copied and pasted, it goes to the serial number page. Anyone up for a Wikipedia page for Gibson serial numbers that isn't a music store's homepage? RC Cola 05:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried going to the page listed as reference and after some navigation found my way to the intended page but all of the links were broken. On a side note, I have a Gibson SG that has a "5" in the location spot, when the only numbers given for production location for Gibson solidbodies are 4 and 7. Fallingwalls1 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I cited the article to Gibson's official page on the subject and changed some notably incorrect information. If anyone would like to expand on what I put, or clean it up, be my guest. (Fallingwalls1 22:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

I've rewritten the whole serial numbers section because it was completely wrong. (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Why isn't there a photo? There should be a big old photo of a vintage Les Paul on this page. If not a guitar (which I suppose could be handled by the individual guitar model pages) there should at least be a picture of the Gibson logo

Well, there are appropriate pictures on the Gibson Les Paul, Gibson SG etc. pages, all tagged {{Promotional}} and presumably taken from the Gibson website. We also could claim fair use of the Gibson logo for this page. What would be better, though, would be good free content (e.g. public domain, GFDL, cc-by or cc-by-sa) photos of Gibsons. Do you own a Gibson? And a camera? Just hoping! --rbrwr± 20:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably, I don't own a Gibson (yet). The more I've thought about it though, it would be better just to have a picture of the Gibson logo for the article on the Gibson company, as opposed to selecting a single guitar model for the picture. Jhayes94 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibson in trouble?[edit]

I'll leave my personal opinions out of this, but I will say that I know 3 shops, 2 of them quite large, that have stopped dealing Gibsons recently due to a perceived nose-dive in quality of manufacture and ever-increasing prices.

I've read plenty about Gibson's quality control problems in the past couple of years. Check out the product reviews at Monkeybreath 11:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't conclude the subject here to be in trouble from those statements, regardless of how factual they are. It would qualify as Original Research. Please look for explicit sources instead. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of ownership of Gibson and names of the company[edit]

No date is given as to when the Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Manufacturing Company Limited became the Gibson Guitar Corporation, or whether the company was known by any other names in between.

Also, while the current management and the year when they took over are clearly stated, no other managers or owners are mentioned. This would be annoying for someone trying to find when Ted McCarty was president of Gibson, what the name of the company was when McCarty was president, or when the notorious "Norlin Era" was, as I was just doing.

Does anyone know where these important facts can be sourced? Respectfully, SamBlob

Product List[edit]

i think the product list needs it own page so it can be freely expanded on without worry of clutter, ect. for example i was thinking about adding another branch off the Les Paul studio section, but it would only add clutter. furthermore i cant see how that list is useful to the casual reader, another reason it should be given its own section, instead of having a list of all the electric guitars the section should merely name the most important ones in an article format. just so we're clear i think the list is excellent and i think that it is worthy of having it's own page. --AlexOvShaolin 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference list[edit]

I added a reference but it doesn't show up. Can anybody see something wrong with it? It looks okay to me. Professor marginalia 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed now. Professor marginalia 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of Nitrocellulose Lacquer[edit]

Is this article the appropriate one to state the fact that all Gibson guitars are finished in nitrocellulose lacquer rather than the cheaper polyester finish used by most other manufactures? Buster 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed corporate material from the article on Gibson the individual[edit]

The following material was removed from the article on the individual who began the Gibson company, because it was entirely concerned with the company. The paragraphs are very gushingly praiseful, and read like a corporate brochure, so I haven't stuck them into the page (but I Googled some specific phrases and couldn't find them anywhere on the net). I am going to similarly remove a few sentences from this article about the individual and move them to his page. Accounting4Taste 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

material starts here[edit]

In the 1920s when the banjo overshadowed the mandolin and severely threatened Gibson's existence, the Gibson spirit of innovation triumphed. Gibson started from scratch with banjos in 1919 and in less than a decade surpassed companies that had specialized in banjos since before Gibson was founded.

For Gibson, innovation and the drive for perfection became a matter of company integrity. Through every change in the public's musical taste, through every change in the instrument industry, Gibson refused to settle for simply making as good an instrument as its competitors. Even making the best instrument in the business was not good enough. Gibson already made the best mandolin on the market, the F-4, when the Gibson F-5 was introduced in 1922. Gibson already made the best archtop guitar on the market, the L-5, when the Super 400 was created in 1934. Gibson already made the best electric pickup on the market, the P-90, when the humbucking pickup appeared in 1957.

Gibson today stands above all others as the only American company to make all styles of fretted instruments-electric guitars, acoustic guitars, banjos and mandolins. Moreover, Gibson is an acclaimed industry leader in all of these styles. The Gibson Les Paul solidbody electric guitar, the ES-335 semi-hollowbody electric guitar, the Super 400 archtop guitar, the J-200 flat top guitar, the Granada banjo, the F-5L mandolin...These are not just famous Gibson models. These are the original designs that established the industry standard for their respective genres.

All the great Gibson models, past and present, are products of a drive to perfection that represents the future as well as the legacy of Gibson-a drive to be not just the best, but to go to the next level, and be better than the best.

=material ends here[edit]

Gibson Invader[edit]

Could someone put up the difference between the las Paul and the invader guitars? From what i can see, (and from what an uninformed person would see) the invader looks exactly like a les Paul.

??? Aside from being a single cutaway how are they "exactly" the same? A bolt-on neck, different headstock style, different pick-ups, 3-way switch located in a different place, the Invader is a flat-top slab and a Les Paul is an Archtop. Quite a few differences. The biggest being that an Invader was around $300 new and a Les Paul goes for $2000-$5000. 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually the headstock style isn't different. Anyway, the Invader can be compared to today's Gibson Melody Maker. They were intended for beginner / intermediate guitar players. They used cheaper materials so it would cost less (as the other user stated above, the Invader went around $300, which is about what Melody Makers go for now). However, the Invader was discontinued in the late 80's I believe. I saw a few on eBay that are going for $1,000. The one pictured (manufactured in 1986) is has some dents, scratches and chips on it. Not only that, but the bridge pickup was replaced with a Seymour Duncan. It would probably go for about $500 on eBay. How do I know this? The Invader pictured in the article is my guitar, given to me by my uncle who originally bought it. My brother took the picture to post it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Les Paul not having any input on the guitar attributed to hsi name.[edit]

"...the guitar that became known as the Les Paul was developed without any input from its namesake." In the article about the Les Paul, it says that he contributed, though only slightly, to the guitar, so I've changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfsjunkie91 (talkcontribs) 21:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GibsonLogo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:GibsonLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Acoustic guitars[edit]

Gibson acoustics are not made in Tennesse, They are made in Montana. Pat Pending (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Authorized copies[edit]

The following paragraph was removed from the article with no explaination. Does anyone know why??...."On May 10, 1957 Gibson purchased the Epiphone guitar company which at the time was one of their main competitors. The original plan was to continue selling Epiphone's successful upright bass, but soon after Gibson realized they could satisfy requests from music stores by producing Epiphone branded guitars.[1] From the early 1970s the Epiphone brand name has been increasingly used by Gibson for lower priced guitars manufactured in countries other than the United States. Epiphone guitars have been made in the US, Japan, Korea, Indonesia and China. Orville by Gibson was another Gibson authorized brand of guitars that were made and sold in Japan." It was blanked by an ip-address edit. Is this important? and should be returned? Thank you.LanceBarber (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag[edit]

I don't believe the page suffers from half as many issues as the recently placed top tag suggests. An outside link in the "Serial number" section isn't contrary to Wikipedia:External links as this policy states, "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic [and] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail..." The link in question complies with this "acceptable link" definition. Fleetham (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External links, the very first sentence reads: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions." What you quoted refers to what is acceptable to include in the "External links" section at the end of the article. As for citations, there are several {{cn}} templates marked throughout the article, and many more could be added. Once references are added,"citations missing" will no longer apply. The lead clearly needs to be rewritten per WP:LEAD. I originally included a NPOV tag because even though the glassdoor comment is cited, it's placement in the lead sees kind of slanted. However, if the lead were written properly and the comment were moved to the appropriate place in the article, the issue would go away. I'm sorry... I'm not trying to be a troll. These flags are meant to help editors identify what needs to be fixed, not punish. I strictly intend the former, not the latter. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The WP:External Links language I quoted does not explicitly refer to external links in the "External links" section.
You're thinking on the survey is simply opinion.
I will try to get more citations. Fleetham (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:External Links clearly states that normally external links go in a dedicated section at the end. At this point, I don't see any special reasons why this article should be an exception. However, I have posted a request for clarification on the guideline's talk page.
My thoughts on the statement are more than just opinion. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be used to summarize the article, which is not the case in this article. It also states: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." This information is not presented in the body at all. However, lots of other sourced information from the body is not even mentioned. As the lead reads now, it generally introduces the company and then says it sucks to work there. The body of the article does not reflect this. I am not opposed to criticism of a company. Quite the opposite: I encourage it per WP:NPOV. I have done my share of arguing for criticisms to be added to the lead, but in those cases, the criticism had significant coverage and references in the body.
As for the citations, I wish you luck. To be honest, over 90% of all Wikipedia articles should be flagged as needing citations. I only added it because I felt the {{multiple issues}} should cover all the article's shortcomings. Of course, that shouldn't stop people like you and me from trying. And just a tip: to prevent your online references from going stale, I recommend archiving them with resources such as WebCite. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, I want to note that you are doing an excellent job cleaning up the article so far. Please keep up the good work. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks and the Webcitations link. Recently I had to use Google cached news articles because removed archived articles and my citations just linked to their front page.
reason why this article should be an exception to the normal WP:EL policy - because people who are interested in learning more about serial numbers may not know to look for an "External links" section at the bottom of the page. It is entirely conceivable for someone to be only interested in the serial numbers, not the Gibson Corp. It is, in fact, likely. I included the survey of employee reviews in the body, and as to why it's in the lead while other material remains out is, precisely, WP:NPOV. Fleetham (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been considering your reason for the current use of the external link in the body for a while, and that's exactly why I haven't made the change myself. Instead, I am waiting for a reply on the guideline's talk page before proceeding. Hopefully someone who is more experienced with external links can offer some suggestions. As for the lead, were you agreeing with me in that the lead need to cover the rest of the body more? Keep in mind that you don't need references in the lead, as long as the material is referenced in the body. (An exception might be needed for the criticism because it is likely to be questioned.) I always write the lead last, quickly but thoroughly summarized everything else I had written. Once that's done, the issue with the criticism of the work environment goes away. I'm just saying that it reads as though a disgruntled employee came by and vandalized the article. One other issue to point out is that the use of headings is a bit excessive. Unless you plan to significantly expand those sections, it might be wise to consolidate some of it. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Per the discussion at the guideline's talk page, the best course of action is to use footnotes to move the link out the body. If you need help doing so, please let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Should Be Factual and Authoritative[edit]

The site is neither. The site allows anyone with an email address to give opinions on a company. There is no attempt to insure the people offering opinions are indeed employees, have not logged in under multiple identities, or that they represent a true sample of all employees. It is very easy to "hijack" the site with a small group of disgruntled but active posters.

Employees who have left positive comments on this site have been harrassed with emails within minutes of posting on the site.

This is not an authoritative site. It does reflect an opinion of a few people but should not be used in a reference work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjguitar (talkcontribs) 15:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I encourage you to couch your disagreement in terms of WP:SOURCES. As I understand it, even if the original source fails those guidelines in some way, the cited source (a Reuters news article) does not. Fleetham (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote this article ?[edit]

This article graphically represents, why WickedPedia, has become a total sham. According to the recent interview with the CEO of Gibson, the raid two years ago has not resulted in ANY CHARGES, NONE... yet you infer that they are guilty.. Gibson has been on the fore front of trying to comply with these ambiguous laws contained in the Lacey Act. The CEO sits on the board of the Rain Forest group, who are leading the charge to protect these woods and renewable resources. And to cite the review by, a site that looks like some 16 year old put it together and is based on a total of 9 reviews from some disgruntled employees, yet you site them as some real bona fide review group, quote Gibson USA as a "bad company to work for" WikiPedia YOU ARE MORONS ! and that's my personal opinion, which is as good a source of the rest of the crap you're printing. Listen to this

Kevin Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you're not going to advance the other side of the story with that attitude. However, I agree that "" is not a very trustworthy source (and should be removed). I would like to point out that I have placed my own complaints at the bottom of this page on the astonishing lack of criticism in regards to the Lacey Act raid. --TurtleShroom! :) NOODY BRANCH! Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food. - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 16:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for missing this talk page discussion until now, and I also apologize if the info about the raid is one-sided. I didn't have any sources, and those that others provided were YouTube videos, which were not reliable sources. Thanks for the links to the sources below. I will review the sources, your edits, and make the appropriate changes. However, I disagree with your removal of the Illegal logging in Madagascar link, and I feel that action suggests bias of your own. The material is tightly linked, and the events in Madagascar are a big part of the reason Gibson got raided per the news sources I've cited. I will restore that link. Otherwise, I wrote no other part of the article. I completely agree that the material should be removed, and have tried in the past, but I didn't want to get into an edit war about it. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 federal raid[edit]

The 24th of August 2011, Gibson has been raid again : Jean Philacridus (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute: Lack of allegations of politicization in the 2011 DOJ raid[edit]

Reading your section on the raid, I'd like to point out that you missed a key and very, VERY notable aspect of the raids. I am disappointed at this huge gap of coverage.

  • First: the CEO of Gibson feels that he is completely innocent and complicit with the environmental regulations, as said in his press release.
  • Second: there are heavy allegations of politicization by the raid. Gibson supporters note that C. F. Martin & Company use either the exact same or similar exotic woods in their instruments. Although these beliefs can not be totally certified, Open Secrets testifies that its CEO donates to Rightist lobbying groups. The CEO of CF Martin, Chris Martin IV, donated money to John B. Callahan. Open Secrets explains this much better.
    • Allegations of politicization assert that the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration has chosen to invoke the Lacey Act on Gibson, as opposed to CF Martin, who uses similar woods in similar manners. Critics see this as a means of punishment to major Republican donors, although it's unquestionably an isolated incident. Folks allege that these notes are to coincidental to say that there was no bias in the raid. The coincidences include political donation histories, their similar pasts, and more.
  • Third: Michelle Obama gave a Gibson Guitar to the French First Lady. This is a similar guitar to the types that were raided, and critics point out that if Gibson was truly involved in an illegal act, the First Lady would not have given a contraband to another as a gesture of goodwill.

I implore Wikipedia to obey its mission of neutrality and amend these extremely important opinions to reflect both sides of a key issue in today's politics.

--TurtleShroom! :) NOODY BRANCH! Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food. - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will be addressing the issues as I stated above in another discussion. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
First, I would like to note that until today, I was unaware of the political slant to this story. From the looks of it, this all erupted recently, either on or after the date that I was updating the article. (Since I don't read conservative news or listen to it on the radio, there's no way I could have known about it.) Otherwise, upon review of your sources, I agree that we need to include the materials from Gibon's own website (obviously). However, I strongly question the reliability of your other sources, namely "", "", "", "", and "". The other source, "Landmark Report" should be fine because it's not in a blog format. Honestly, though, your accusations about a lack of neutrality were out of line if you're referring to anything other than lack of coverage of Gibson's statements. Unlike the ultra-conservative sources you have quoted, none of the other sources used treat this as a political issue. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that I know more about, I'm striking the question about its reliability. However, there are still two big issues: 1) Your links are broken. 2) From what I understand, is just a database of political donations. You cannot draw your own conclusions from it, otherwise you violate WP:OR. To make those kind of statements, you need a reliable source to back up those claims... and you'd probably need to note who is making those claims (avoiding weasel words). – VisionHolder « talk » 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
With no replies in a couple of days, I'm going to go ahead and clean this up tonight. I will be removing your unreliable references (and any material that relied upon it), while adding new material that I have recently found from reliable references. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to look carefully at the sources that are currently in the text, but let me note, right off the bat, that the three points mentioned above by TurtleShroom are not based on reliable sources as far as I'm concerned, and the note on Michelle Obama is pure original research and synthesis ("the First Lady would not have given..."). Now, Visionholder seems to accept one of the sources and they could be right, so I'll have a closer look at it as well, but it should be clear that until sourcing is deemed impeccable, here and possibly on the RS noticeboard, this information does not belong in the article. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the 'left-wing' section. The sources cited are certainly not great, and one could not accept political commentary from a site like that Rainforest Alliance's--such sources can only be cited as primary sources about the organization itself. But worse, there was no secondary or even primary sources to support the fact that there was notable criticism from left-wing bloggers. I'm going to look at the other section next; I urge editors to consider WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY, and to remember that not everything that's found on the interwebz is enyclopedic information. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And I have removed the 'right-wing' section. Data from, which is run by Center for Responsive Politics, may be reliable, but the conclusions drawn from that data are, in this case, derived from this blog. There is no reliable secondary sources to support the fact that 'right-wing bloggers' (note the plural) criticize the investigation and its political intent; besides, that blog does not rise to the level of notability to deserve mention here as proof of widespread allegations of politicization. To TurtleShroom, above: we are not the news, in a nutshell, and until more reliable sources report on a possible controversy, such a supposed controversy should not be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the above edits. I'm not particularly fond of discussing the political controversy, particularly because of the lack of reliable sources. I tried to stick to the sources with an editorial board when covering both sides. But you are right, without reliable sources, the information does not belong in the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. The article is in pretty bad shape already; edit-warring over politics (or, in this case, a legal case apparently jumped on by some politickers) can only make it worse. BTW, I do appreciate your effort to represent both sides. Now let's get back to playing. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, in regards to that Wickedpedia comment above (haha), there aren't always two sides to represent. If an investigation is taking place, and it's notable enough, it can be remarked upon--that doesn't mean that all sides have to see their commentary reflected. To put it another way, most Fenders have single-coil pickups. Stating that the Stratocaster was first made with single-coils doesn't mean we have to include commentary from humbucker-fans and the countercommentary from the single-coil crowd, with a bit of extra room for the P-90 fans and the Stratocaster HSS crowd. Facts are facts, sometimes; we are under no obligation to turn factual matters into a forum discussion. To the IP who started that thread, that Wikipedia includes a report on an investigation doesn't mean "we" endorse it. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Before reading your reply and after seeing your edits, I read an interesting piece that showed me the error I made by trying to address the need for neutrality. The piece read:

Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'" source

Anyway, I have no interest in cleaning up the rest of this article. Instead, I placed the {{Multiple issues}} tag on it, and hoped that another editor to take it on. (I write more in the field of biology.) But yes, I agree with all you have said and will try to maintain that approach as I monitor and update this section with the facts of the case. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

<--Visionholder, I certainly don't want to call you in error, not in any way: I think you did the best you could and were trying to be careful and respectful. I, unfortunately, am not so friendly, but then, I was forcibly ejected from the field of biology for a certain eyeball experiment (not on an animal's eyeball). Anyway, nice to see that Krugman remark--I like to think I taught him everything he knows. Thanks for that link! Drmies (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I own a Gibson Melody Maker,single fat pickup, single cut away. The serial number is ink stamped on the back of the head #932547. According to your serial number search this guitar is a 1962, but according to your disciption this guitar is a 1960. Is there a place I can take this guitar to verify my guitar info? My email adddress is I would really appreciate a responce Crocety (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a flyby at the lead to adequately summarize the article, paraphrase major controversies and so on. If other editors feel it's up to snuff with WP:lead, we could take that flag down. As a side note, the COI declaration my signature auto-generates isn't relevant here. User:CorporateM 05:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Company Start Date[edit]

Contrary to what the current page displays, the Gibson Guitar Corporation was not formed until 1902. The first Gibson instrument was made in 1894, but the company was not established until later:

"October 10, 1902 The Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Mfg. Co., Ltd. is formed. Orville's mandolins are far superior to the bowlbacks or “taterbugs” of his day, and he is unable to meet the rising demand. Five Kalamazoo businessmen buy rights to his name and patent for $2500 and hire him as a consultant. Orville is not one of the principals of the Gibson company, but he does own some stock. Within six months, however, he is at odds with the board of managers, and he sells his stock to his local saloon keeper. Orville continues to receive a royalty and later a pension until his death in 1918."

--Gibson History

I will not change the date on the page as I fear it would be changed back within a few hours. Please discuss. User:VintageGuitarGuy

I just changed the dates from the inconsistent and incorrect 1896/1894 to the correct 1902 company formation date.

Serial numbers[edit]

I made a quick pass at removing non-neutral sub-heads, condensing the controversy and consolidating some sections. I made a bit of a mess with the Instruments section and will circle back to clean up. There is a lot of content regarding serial numbers in the Instruments section. Does anyone have some contest on why/if this is significant? CorporateM (Talk) 18:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

not sure what model gibson i have[edit]

±serial # 90727474 not sure if its standard or studio, or is there a diferance ?? ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Gibson Guitar CorporationGibson Brands, Inc – The company has officially changed its name from Gibson Guitar Corp to Gibson Brands, Inc as of June 11, 2013. Here is the news post on a link to the press release announcing the change: and a news article from the Nashville Post about the change: Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Chafinsky (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Against Keep as it is. As per WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME, the article title doesn't need to reflect the official names; it needs to be the one people are most familiar with and the one people will recognise. Unquestionably that is the current name. Gibson Guitar Corp is world famous and is what people would naturally search for; "Gibson Brands" isn't -unless you're an expert who follows the company religiously you're not going to know about the name change. In a few years, who knows, "Gibson Brands" might become the name most people are familiar with (I doubt it), but at the minute it is defiantly not. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Most people are familiar with "Gibson" as the name of the company, so it doesn't seem like the name change will confuse anybody. The move to me would reflect Precision and would preserve Recognizability as well in WP:CRITERIA. Research in Motion, the company, recently changed its name to Blackberry and the Wikipedia page was moved accordingly. However, that may not be quite a valid comparison, since people were already more familiar with "Blackberry", which is why they changed their name to begin with. Chafinsky (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Updating sources[edit]

I would like to expand the reference (source) list at the end of this article. Currently there is only one book on the reference list (by Hembry), though other books (by Wheeler, Duchossoir, Gleick, etc.) are listed in the inline citations. If there are no objections, I would like to list some of the many authoritative sources out there on the Gibson company in hopes of streamlining the citations, making it easier to add new ones. My hopes are to add a lot more source material for those interested in this venerable, old company, without losing any of the information currently there. Any objections? Mark Froelich (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

With no objections I have added about 25 sources to the reference list, trying to cover major writers about Gibson history such as Bacon and Duchossoir. I'm sure I have missed some gems by these authors and others. But it's a start. Please adjust and add. Mark Froelich (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a section giving addresses and years for known Gibson factories/facilities. If anybody knows of a more elegant way of positioning the chart, especially in relation to the pictures on the right side, please do. Also, if anyone has any good sources for Gibson's three main factories today (first year of operation, etc.)... please fill in. I will keep searching. Thank you. Mark Froelich (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gibson Guitars 100 years of an American Icon, Walter Carter