Talk:General Motors/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Which controversies should make it to the article page?

How do we decide which controversies are big enough to make it to the controversy section of the article page? For example, I think we would all agree that the Corvair incident with Nader should be on the home page. We might decide that the controversy regarding GM and the demise of the streetcar should make it (that case made its way well up the legal system). However, I find it hard to believe that 50 years from now people would look at an oil leak recall and call it worthy of mention. No deaths "associated with" and hardly a land mark case that, regardless of the actual facts, resulted in a public shift in sentiments. It would seem like the saddle tanks in the C/K trucks would be more significant yet that isn't on the list.

So what criteria should we use or has been used in the past, to judge which events are worthy of making it to the controversy section? Laking input from others I'm going to pull the oil leak paragraph. It's simply too and not significant enough to warrant a place on what is meant to be an article about a 100+ year old organization. I'm less certain about some of the others and would be interested in group input before acting. Springee (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Added clarification that I meant the controversy section of the article, not the whole article. This edit was added after Nagle's reply below. Springee (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The bankruptcy and old/new GM should be in the lede. That's the biggest event in the company's history from an investor perspective. The stockholders lost everything. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The bankruptcy and how it was handled certainly caused some controversy. However, it has it's own section and mention in the lede. In this case I'm talking specifically about things in this section [1]. It may be appropriate to mention the bankruptcy issues here as well but since they have their own WP article and earlier section I think it would be overkill. Springee (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed several of the items from the controversy section. The oil leak recall was a large number of cars but no deaths and hasn't seemed to result in any notable outcomes. The seat heater lawsuit seemed like a singular case and no legal outcome was listed. The ECU software again seemed like a small item in scope and impact. It had only one reference. Springee (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnfos, I saw that you just added information about the X-body cars to the controversies section. Would you offer an opinion as to what standards we might use to decide something should make the controversy section. I'm personally not convinced the x-body issue is significant enough which is why I've asked. Stepho-wrs, CZmarlin, I would like your input as well. Thanks all. Springee (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Springee. When the government launches a defects investigation, I tend to think the matter is a notable one. Also, I saw an article in Popular Mechanics which lists the early X-cars saga as one of the "5 Most Notorious Recalls of All Time". regards, Johnfos (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Johnfos. I don't think defect investigations should be a high enough bar. There are LOTS of those. Some turn out to be big like the ignition lock or Firestone tire deals. Others are rather minor. The company might fight them but that's probably just good policy. The PM article might be sufficient but I would want a few more good sources before feeling really comfortable about this as a big controversy. PM's arguments weren't very persuasive. Yes, the car wasn't that good but how does that make it controversial? I'm afraid if we were to use this as the bar we might have half the article in this section alone. Anyway, I don't think, as of now, the X-body brake recall should be in the article but I think we should seek more input. Springee (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Having just reviewed several lists of "infamous recalls" I haven't seen others talk about this X-body issue. This tends to make me think this shouldn't be in the controversy section. Springee (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed a few of the items from the controversy section. They simply aren't big enough given the size and scope of GM. I'm also leaning in favor of removing the X-body controversy section. Though it did make it to one list, other similar lists didn't mention it. I see it's inclusion on the main article page as WP:UNDUE. I have added a project automobiles discussion topic regarding what counts as a significant controversy here [2] Springee (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, Springee, but I feel we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. It seems that most of the defects and recalls material submitted to this page has been removed, or will soon be, yet promotion of the success of GM, though the Motorsports section etc. remains. So the article is becoming unbalanced. -- Johnfos (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnfos, I get what you are saying. I don't want you to think that I would suggest the current "controversy" section is complete (I'm not sure that subject heading complies with NPOV). I suspect there are a few more bit controversies that we haven't thought to include. Even though the facts are in dispute I would say the death of streetcars probably should make it into the section (if the GM Streetcar article stabilizes). I haven't carefully read through the motorsports section so I can't claim it's balanced and lacks any UNDUE issues. That said, I don't think we should judge what makes it into one section based on the content of an unrelated section. Recalls in general just aren't that notable when placed against the history of the company. I think we need to explain why a particular recall is notable to include it. The ignition recall is notable for a few reasons. It's very large and costly, it got Congressional notice, people are talking about criminal levels of negligence and a number of deaths, rightly or wrongly, have been attributed to it. BTW, when looking at other company web pages I noticed that basically only GM and Ford had controversy sections. Toyota's page lacked such a section and seemed all together less critical. I think it is worth asking why these two companies (Toyota just as an example). Anyway, that is another subject. Anyway, I think what we should be doing here is deciding what is UNDUE in context of this article (I suspect a lot of the current material is). Springee (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

HRL laboratories

Why is there no mention that GM owns hrl laboratories?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.248.47 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Buick picture in the Bankruptcy section

Data Aficionado, does it really make sense to include the Buick in the bankruptcy section? It seems like a bit of OR or material that isn't really encyclopedic. Basically it just seems odd to me to cite that car while the bankruptcy paragraphs say nothing about the post bankruptcy product. Is this really the best way to incorporate such information? Springee (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Springee - please see below:

a) Not OR, since the post Chapter 11 revival of Buick and other GM products has been covered and mentioned extensively in the automotive press. The LaCrosse and Enclave are often given as examples when GM's revival is mentioned.

b) My thinking is that the photo of a car ties the history of GM back to the product. GM is a car company and it's history defined by its cars.

Data Aficionado (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Data Aficionado, I guess OR might be a bit strong but the way the article's comments are being used vs the figure and it's caption seems weak to me. I understand that a number of GM car reviews shortly after the company was restructured talked about the strong product in the pipeline. It just seems like the picture and caption here are not well integrated with the section text. I also kind of get what you mean with B but I don't think that the picture and text succeed in what you are trying to do. Basically I can't think of any policy or guideline issue with your addition but I feel like it, editorially speaking, just kind of hangs there. Is there a citation we could add to the main text that would better integrate the picture and the article text? It also could be used as a stronger citation for the caption perhaps. Springee (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

GM Logo

The logo featured on this page is technically out of date. If any member of the editing community would like to update the logo, you can reference the one we use in our verified Twitter account at http://www.twitter.com/GM.

Direct link to the image: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/661288443100725248/cAj9N0Z0.jpg

ABOUT ME:

My name is Patrick and I am managing this account as a member of the General Motors Communication staff. My goal with this account is to assist the community with information, address any questions that you may have about GM and provide links to primary and third-party sources that may help answer those questions here or at the Reference Desk. You can find more about me on my profile page.

Patrick at GM (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on General Motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 9 January 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)

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. [[3]] 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)

Prose

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

10.1 Discontinued brands
10.2 Former subsidiaries
10.3 Current affiliates
10.4 Former affiliates
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 [[4]] and [[5]] Springee (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

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)— 13.112.65.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

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 [[6]] 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 [[7]] has sourcing issues. The 2007 chart [[8]] cites a source that says GM was largest in 2007 [[9]]. 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? Björn Bergman 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 [[10]] and 2007 [[11]] 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[[12]] while citing the OICA report that shows GM as #1 [[13]]). 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. Björn Bergman 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. Björn Bergman 22:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, almost everything you said proves my point.

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.
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.
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.
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 [14]] Springee (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Article hit by vandal, and not noticed.

Someone deleted various numbers from the article, leaving nothing.[15] 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)

Support of climate disinformation

Why is this content unacceptable for the article?[16] The material appears well-source and neutrally presented. If it's just because of who wrote it, as the edit summary says, then I'll restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

First, the material was removed because it was placed by a block evading editor. I would also oppose the material on weight grounds. The link between the content and GM is weak at best. Thus we don't have sufficient WEIGHT for inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If the material was too long on weight grounds then how much space would be correct? Felsic2 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

None. The material in question and the links to GM are too tenuous to be included in a general article about an organization of the size, scope and overall impact of GM. Springee (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "tenuous". These sources seem to establish a clear, strong linkage between this company and climate change dnieal efforts.

Pilkington, Ed (March 30, 2012). "General Motors pulls funding from climate sceptic thinktank Heartland". The Guardian. Retrieved March 10, 2017. General Motors, the world's largest carmaker, has confirmed that it is pulling funding from the Heartland Institute, an ultra-conservative thinktank known for its scepticism about climate change. The decision by the GM Foundation to halt its support for Heartland after 20 years underlines the new image the carmaker is seeking to project as part of its social responsibility programme. In the past GM has itself been associated with efforts to discredit climate change science...
Simonian, Haig (December 4, 1997). "Haig Simonian Talks with the Renault Chairman Ahead of the Kyoto Environmental Conference". Financial Times. Europe's carmakers have responded more subtly than their "Big Three" US counterparts. General Motors , Ford and Chrysler are among the leading supporters of the Global Climate Coalition, the US pressure group that has spent about $13m lobbying Washington to oppose any deal on limiting the consumption of fossil fuels. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Brown, Lester R. (July 25, 2000). "The Rise and Fall of the Global Climate Coalition". In Brown, Lester R.; Larsen, Janet; Fischlowitz-Roberts, Bernie (eds.). The Earth Policy Reader: Today's Decisions, Tomorrow's World. Routledge. ISBN 9781134208340. Retrieved February 6, 2016. In rapid succession in the early months of 2000, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, and General Motors announced that they too were leaving the Coalition. With the departure of GM, the world's largest automobile company, the die was cast. A spokesman for the Sierra Club quipped, "Maybe it is time to ask the last one out to turn out the lights."
Lieberman, Amy; Rust, Susanne (December 31, 2015). "Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 24, 2016. When Shell left the Global Climate Coalition in 1998, it was followed by Ford Motor Co., Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, Southern Co. and General Motors. The organization disbanded in 2002.
Monahan, John J. (April 21, 1996). "Corporations Put their Spin on Environmentalism; Groups Challenge Conventional Views". Telegram & Gazette. Worcester, Massachusetts. p. 1. Heartland, with nearly a $1 million budget funded by international oil and chemical companies, the tobacco industry, nuclear power groups, the Ford Motor Co. and General Motors, is one of many influential new institutions promoting environmental deregulation. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
"Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program". Scientific American. February 15, 2012. Retrieved March 10, 2017. Other donors giving more than $10,000 a year to the Institute include Allied World Assurance Company, Amgen, USA, AT&T, Bayer Corporation, Comcast Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline and General Motors.
Pappas, Stephanie (February 15, 2012). "Documents reveal Koch-funded group's plot to undermine climate science". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved March 10, 2017. Other donors giving more than $10,000 a year to the Institute include Allied World Assurance Company, Amgen, USA, AT&T, Bayer Corporation, Comcast Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline and General Motors.
Goldenberg, Suzanne; Rushe, Dominic (February 16, 2012). "Climate science attack machine took donations from major corporations". The Guardian. Retrieved March 10, 2017. General Motors Foundation, which is committed to social responsibility, has also made modest donations to Heartland, contributing $15,000 in 2010 and 2011, though for projects other than climate science. There was no immediate response from the foundation, but GM itself defended its $30,000 donation. Greg Martin, GM's director of policy and Washington communications, said: "We support a variety or organisations that give careful and considerate thought to complex policy issues and Heartland is one of them." He said GM's cash was not donated for a specific programme.
Borenstein, Seth (February 16, 2012). "Influence Game: Leaks show group's climate efforts". The Boston Globe. Associated Press. Retrieved March 10, 2017. ... the General Motors Foundation gave $45,000...General Motors spokesman Greg Martin said the company's foundation gives money to "a variety of different groups holding a variety of opinions."

If reporting the actions of the company isn't allowed in this article which article should get this information? Felsic2 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Felsic2, it appears that you are simply going around and trying to support edits made by a disruptive IP editor as a way of disagreeing with me. I'm really not interested in playing that game. Springee (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: That may be, but this is not enough to completely disregard reliably sourced and notable materiel on GM. I believe we need to discuss how exactly to include this information. Lklundin (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

most of the 'Small car sales' section is between deeply misleading & flat out wrong

From what I can tell most of the 'Small car sales' section is between deeply misleading & flat out wrong. Much of the wording seems to entirely ignore the existence of numerous vehicles such as the Chevrolet Chevette and the Geo Metro. Even the wording of the section seems completely out of touch with the article it cites, which does mention the Chevette. Honestly the whole section needs a re write to include things the the 1.0 Liter 3 cylinder Geo, but i'll get started on the part related to the Sonic & Chevette now. 00:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.150.118 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

npov

This article reads like an advertorial. Why does, for example, the death toll of the General Motors ignition switch recalls not get its due weight? [17] [18] [19] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear here you tagged the article as a whole because you want to see death rates? Why not just add it? Would be less editing then tagging and adding this talk? Is the page locked to you....is this a request?--Moxy (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that comment did not help at all......did you mean to add Template:Advert--Moxy (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You linked to {{Advert}}, did you mean {{CSS image crop}}? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tag removed..... when you have the ability to communicate with other editors better maybe we can solve the problem.--Moxy (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read our conversation so far, and try to determine the cause of the communication problem. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably better if you just move on like you said in that editsummary, because our conversation is not going well so far. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is a problem..... I've asked you to explain yourself a few times and you don't seem to have the capability of the replying in a normal manner. So what can others do here ... How can I solve the problem? --Moxy (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop insulting me? If you apologize for repeatedly insulting me then we can talk. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Insulting you? For the 5th time can you elaborate on what you mean? So far your just giving me a runaround. I am trying to solve a problem....but cant get a straight answer from you. You don't seem new so I am at a loss as to why your replies are so evading. How can I fix the problem if your not clear. Read your replies again. Moxy (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:INDENT. That is not an apology. Someone other than yourself will fix this problem. Please move on to something more constructive, our conversation has not been going well so far. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

- - - - I am sorry you are offended...was not my intent...now can you elaborate on the problem? So others can work on it.--Moxy (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, that is not an apology. If you apologize for repeatedly insulting me then we can talk. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

.I have been here 12 years never have I seen this before. Will just edit what I think your taking about. Wish me luck.--Moxy (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Good luck. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any different numbers for the death rates then we already have listed in the article...so at this point I have asked for more help from project members. --Moxy (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the above reads like Abbott and Costello's Who's on First? I have removed the collapse {{collapse top}} wrapper because it's real hard to participate in a hidden discussion and one side thinks it is important enough to raise as an issue. My view is that in 5-10 years time nobody will care about this issue, apart from those involved and their loved ones. Which is why I would not give it any prominence in the article. Does anybody remember or care any more Firestone tyres separating? Or Toyota's floormats? The General Motors#Defective ignition system investigation gives it all the attention it need and points to an article that explains it in fuller detail for those that care. Any further detail in the General Motors articles is giving it too much prominence. Stepho talk 14:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed the tag. The need for the tag hasn't been justified. It's not clear what TQP feels is missing and I agree that when we take the long view of a 100+ year old organization this topic doesn't deserve much weight. This is especially true as "linked to" is not the same as "caused by". Anyway, the correct process is to make (bold if necessary) changes to the article then let people respond. Placing the NPOV tag before actually trying to fix the problem just not the right way to deal with a proposed article issue. Springee (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Fall 2019 UAW strike

@Abarry123:, it might be a bit too soon to include this newest strike. UAW strikes are rather common and most, individually are not WP:DUE in the scope of the GM article. It's too early to say if this one will be. I'm not proposing removing the material right away but it probably should be removed in the end. Springee (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Tariffs

Can somebody review the General_Motors#US_tariffs_on_non-US_built_vehicles section. I've done some mechanical work on it (tidying up references, etc) but the original author seems to have an axe to grind. I wouldn't necessarily remove it completely but I question the long term importance of it (except of course to the US and Mexican workers involved). Stepho talk 06:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Airbus A350-100BOI

and I seem to have some disagreements. As far as I am aware, Trump is not able to charge tariffs himself. Instead, he orders the US government to charge the tariffs. Afterall, we don't call the Chicken Tax as the Johnson Tax. Secondly, as an Australian citizen I see US vehicles as foreign made, Mexican vehicles as foreign made and Australian vehicles as local made. Naturally Mexican and US citizens would see each of these in a different light. Which is why "foreign" cannot be part of a title - it means different things to different people. Stepho talk 21:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the section as UNDUE. We need to look at things with a WP:10 year test. The Nader material passes that test. The ignition material might. This material regarding Trump and cars build in China? No. I agree with Stepho-wrs the section read more like someones ax on the grind stone vs something encylopedic given a 100+ year old company. Springee (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional note, the subsections related to the Blazer and Buick appear to be uncredited text copies from the vehicle specific articles. Springee (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Business units"

How the hell is this placed before "History"? 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:89A0:86AC:9715:3646 (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Because money is more important than knowledge. Now where can I send the bill for that economics lessons. Stepho talk 11:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Galaxyepiccool

I am wondering how you make your cars because I wanna be a car designer when I grow up so do you have anything about electric cars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.103.16 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware that this page (and all of Wikipedia) is maintained by volunteers who are not affiliated with General Motors. Our aim is to document the broad facts about General Motors rather than provide a question and answer service. Having said that, you may find electric vehicles a good place to start reading. Follow the links to other articles and follow the references to various books. Good luck. Stepho talk 23:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict]A better choice would be to use your favorite search engine to discover information regarding your questions. Wikipedia is not a general question and answer or discussion forum. It's great that you want to be a car designer when you grow up. Focus on your current education, get good grades, and use the vast amounts of knowledge already stored both here on Wikipedia and in a zillion places around the internet to explore your interests and passions. Good luck. Anastrophe (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Realize vs realise

Realize and realise are alternate spellings of the same word. In the US and Canada, realize is by far the more common spelling. In the UK, Australia, and New Zealand realise dominates, though realize is sometimes used too. The discrepancy stems from a history of different dictionaries and publishers choosing their preferred versions until a pattern stuck.Nyth 63 22:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a word-for-word quote from https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/realize-vs-realise-difference

Like it said, both forms are valid in both British and American English but each has a favoured form. So we use WP:ENGVAR which tells us that article strongly tied to the US should use favoured US forms and articles strongly tied to Britain should use British English. General Motors is very strongly tied to the US, so the form favoured by the majority of US speakers should be favoured.

Note: you can tell by my spelling of favoured that I am not American. But in this case we should be using American English. Stepho talk 11:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)