Talk:General Electric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General Electric article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Military contractor

I noticed that there is no mention of GE's weapons or defense division. I have been trying to figure out where this should go but I have been going in circles. According to the NY Times GE is "one of the nation's largest military contractors" (Pentagon Disciplines G.E. For Role in Bribe Scandal RICHARD W. STEVENSON June 3, 1992). Yet there is no mention of this anywhere on the main page. I looked under List of assets owned by General Electric but found no mention of their defense division. I looked around Wikipedia and found articles like M61 Vulcan which mentions General Electric Armament division which strangely enough links to the GE main page rather than a page on the Armament division, which itself is not listed under the List of Assets owned by GE. I looked further and found that the page on Martin Marietta mentions that GE sold their Aerospace division to Martin in 1993 but the link to GE Aerospace division is empty even though, according to Kathryn Mulvey Executive Director of Infact, GE was "the leader in 50 years of the production and promotion of nuclear weapons in all phases of that business –– from design in the Manhattan Project all the way through testing and delivery" through that division. (The Multinational Monitor July/August 2001 - VOLUME 22 - NUMBER 7&8).

So my question is, even though GE one of the largest defense contractor, and even though they still produce weapons, why is there no mention of the GE division that does these things? I may be wrong and be completely overlooking something, and I am not trying to make GE look bad nor am I looking to put their weapons division on the front page. For historical accuracy I just want to know where I should put the page on GE's defense and armament division.Adhanali (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I came to the page hoping to read about their defense division and their role as a US defense contractor. I was surprised to not find anything here about it. I hope someone can piece together enough to put on the p.age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.129.34 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
GE doesn't have "defense division". Defense products are produced under GE Infrastructure and GE Industrial divisions of the company. Further, GE has undergone several reorganizations in recent decades. The "armaments division" mentioned above could simply be a misnomer on the reporter's part, or a division that is now called something else. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "In addition, we can't add a category for every industry GE is involved with."

Why not? I thought this was exactly why we had categories. Whether GE is "an electronics company" is a separate issue... but certainly GE should be included in any category in which it is an important company. Shouldn't it? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you realize how many categories that would add? It is better to categorize each individual division, rather than the main company. And GE doesn't really manufacture electronics per se anymore, they have mostly sold off those groups, or they are just servile to an encompassing division. Just because you see General Electric-branded items in the store doesn't mean that they are produced by GE. It would be the same thing as saying that AT&T produces telephones, when they haven't for about a decade. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Do you realize how many categories that would add?" Sure. GE isn't exactly just any old company. Well, OK, no, I don't know how many categories it would add, but I'd guess between 20 and 100. But, you know, it's not my fault that GE is a giant in so many industries. Again, what exactly is the problem with adding a lot of categories? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It'd be a huge list. Anyhow, categorize the divisions, not the parent company. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should include as much a possible, that is what the whole wikipedia is all about. Plus it does seem a bit biased towards the good(relative term) GE Companies. "We bring good things to life.", also includes the GE M134 Minigun. - BatGnat 23:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Thomas Edison has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for this article and help improve it to featured status. --Fenice 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GE Electric in Australia?

Is GE Electric in Australia?? I haven't seen their products anywhere. I can't believe such a huge company could not exist here. Davez621 10:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to say that GE is pretty much in every country, even if you don't see them under their own name. Anyhow, http://www.ge.com/au/. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

GE does exist, Friges, ovens, microwaves can be found more, and more often. For a long time there was virtually no market share for GE products, I.E. you could only find them if you knew where to look. The most well known business is GE Capital Finance, which has formed a near monopoly on the "6 months interest free" finance in stores, after puchasing AVCO (Australia/New Zealand) and AGC Credit. - BatGnat 23:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Old post, I know, but GE has had a huge presence in Australia in personal finance. www.gemoney.com.au is one of their sites. Leading retailers like Harvey Norman use GE as their default customer finance provider, and GE's tv advertisements have been really hard to miss (they are really cheesy). The General Gmotion on GE's financing, afaik is that they are a rip off. JayKeaton (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brand

Where is the source that GE's brand is the most recognized in the world? I don't doubt this, however, it does not take a neutral stance in its current status without sources. KansasCity 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecomagination?

Should Ecomagination be added to this article? After all, GE's new direction to being "green" company is pretty significant move IMHO.

Yes, I think its one of the biggest initiatives by GE right now, apart from NPS. It should be added... ramit 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when is an ad saying that they are for the environment a "new direction?" When did they say they were opposed to clean air and water?

It wouldn't make sense to go into the ad campaign without some estimation of whether it is more than skin-deep.

Has GE solved the nuclear waste issue? Despite GE's own declarations of safety, there is still argument regarding whether the current temporary waste storage pools are uniformly safe from terrorist attack. Meanwhile the Yucca Mountain storage facility is at stalemate.

Have all questions regarding the safety of GE's third-world nuclear power plants been satisfactorily resolved? I've read accusations that they've cut corners on containment for some less expensive facilities, and that some plants are dangerously located near fault lines.

I am not speaking to the validity of these points. I came to this entry seeking some answers regarding them, and I see none. A balanced and objctive appraisal of these issues would be a good addition. But the "ecomagination" campaign alone is no more earth-shaking than Coke having a new jingle.71.48.59.67 04:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here are a few links: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Most of these are from notable environment friendly third parties. Infact i tried to find criticism of the initiative, but could not find any. Its a fact that GE has pledged actual big money on this initiative. It will be great to hear the other side of the story from somebody who knows, though.. -- Lost 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Dow member?

Following the link to the Dow Jones history shows that it is not among the 12 original members. jhhays

I checked the link. It clearly mentions that besides General Electric, the other 11 members were... Maybe the edit was done after your remark ramit 07:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he means, it hasn't always been a member. http://djindexes.com/mdsidx/index.cfm?event=showAvgFaq#q5 --Purpleslog 00:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subsidiary

The subsidiary page needs updation. GE is now divided in only six industries which are further divided in various product/ industry groups... ramit 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I have made the changes. The updated list of businesses is directly from the GE website. I have also give the link to that... ramit 07:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of GECIS or GENPACT

Doesn't any of the editors think that there should be a mention of GECIS or GENPACT in the article, Especially in the History section, when you have the GENWORTH spinoff list there. --202.63.114.107 10:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is not about Genpact, it's mention should come under history. See acquisitions below too. Same logic here too. Vivek 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acquisitions

I know that many of the acquisitions that get listed here are large, but let's face it: GE is a huge and they acquire and divest a lot of companies. To list every single one would dominate this article. I think we need to exercise caution with regard to what we list. Perhaps the solution is to keep it to the most important ones (eg. RCA, Universal) and form a separate article with a timeline. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. With the number of acquisitions and divestments, it would make sense to have a separate article listing all with a timeline. This article should have only a passing mention of these. Lost 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I created General Electric timeline as a start. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really ugly template

Please see the discussion at Template talk:General Electric#All of GE media. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Has GE's logo ever changed? I've seen relaly old logos exactly the same as they are now. Maybe someone can find some info on this.--Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

GE has changed its logos very often. Though it has always been a variant of the meatball. There is a link somewhere on the GE site giving all the logos chronologically. I will try to find it and place it here for you. -- Lost 03:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Update:Sorry couldnt find the evolution on the site. But I have definitely seen a ppt of it somewhere. Maybe you could try out www.gebrandcentral.com. But it needs a password which you can request if you have a genuine use -- Lost 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit the sidebar, but right now it says that GE has revenue of 149 Trillion dollars. Come on, wikipedia, you're not even trying sometimes.

[edit] Controversy

I find it amazing and sketchy that so many entries in Wikipedia offer a final "Controversy", "Disputed", "Discprepency" or "Critical Criticisms" heading under most categories. While I understand the argument for not wanting to add all the companies that G.E. owns, I feel that as a matter of Wikipedia remaining a pure factual dictionary, refusing to atleast have some type of "disputed" entry about actual owned comapnies that show that this company is not just an "electric conglomerate", and steps into the realm of defense contractor makes me feel sad that Wikipedia is slowly becoming controlled by big business. There have been many critics of G.E. and none are mentioned here, is that not a curious thing? Even the most untaouchable entries that are turned into "log in to edit only" entries still have a counter point. Is this not a fair comment? Does G.E. pay a webmaster to specifically monitor their "wiki" page to keep it "clean"? I guess we will see how long this stays up here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.173.42 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My fellow editor, you seem to misunderstand the nature of this encyclopedia. First of all, it is a wiki. If you would like to, wikipedia:citing sources, add a criticisms section, you may go ahead and do so. Secondly, we have a policy called Neutral Point of View. Articles are not kept "clean;" they include whatever reasonable information our editors add to them. An editor in the employ of GE will not succeed for very long in biasing this article in favor of his or her company. Thirdly, There is no cabal. Picaroon9288•talk 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I've created a Controversy category, I've retitled this section and will use it to address Jules7484's edit. If you can provide a reference [i.e. other big conglomerates who have paid 9-figure settlements for their polluting], I think your addition will improve NPOV. However, in the absence of a reference, it comes across as special pleading. Ribonucleic 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did Boeing switch to GE/CFM from Pratt& Whitney?

Does anybody know the real reason? 62.118.129.225 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Boeing has never favored one or another engine manufacturer, neither in its piston engine days, nor its jet engine days. Indeed, Boeing will deliver aircraft to purchasers with whatever engine they specify in the contract, provided that the engine fits the general requirements necessary to get the plane into the air. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Zeland???

Hey what about New Zeland???? Is GE also there in New Zeland too???? If so can you give me the link would fine with it too. Thanks. Rencin Matthew. rencin24 rencin24 06:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you are: http://www.ge.com/nz/ -- Lost(talk) 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Not notable

Amazing how you omniscient Wikipedia people (individually!) have a comprehensive index on what's notable in every sector of the human experience. If you're a Wikipedia admin and you say it's not notable (i.e. you're ignorant to it) it must be crap! Who needs Wikipedia to enumerate the sum of all human knowledge when we could just ask the individual admins?

How could you say a company founded by Thomas Edison, now with 330,000 employees worldwide isn't notable? Arx Fortis 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So Wikipedians say: I am not intimately familiar with it, therefore it is not notable. The article on my company Chapter Zero was deleted with similar reasoning. I'm just trying to keep Wikipedia guideline enforcement consistent. If no one objects I'm going to mark this as AfD 68.38.196.212 08:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)John
This is a bad faith afd and I have reverted it. Please read WP:POINT — Lost(talk) 11:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analyst Coverage

What's with the analyst coverage section? It makes no sense to have this in the article. None of the analysts are linked to anything (internal or external). The Yahoo link doesn't seem appropriate. Should this section be removed? ++ Arx Fortis 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If there was some actual coverage, it would make sense. Right now it doesnt. — Lost(talk) 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Electric Founder

On GE's website, Thomas Edison is listed as the company's sole founder. What do you know that GE doesn't? Obadiaha 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 1) That what Edison founded was the Edison General Electric Company, not the General Electric Company, which was the result of a later merger;
  • 2) That corporation websites are there to promote the company, not to provide historically accurate information, and often present slightly colorful but not strictly accurate versions of the company's origin; and that GE may well know more than they choose to present on their website;
  • 3) That numerous sources agree with what our article says; for example,

Toomey, Daniel P. (1892), Massachusetts of Today: A Memorial of the State, Historical and Biographical, Columbia Publishing Company, p. 542: "The recent consolidation of the Edison with the Thomson-Houston Company, as the General Electric, has increased this giant industry."

Dpbsmith (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd largest company

The introduction incorrectly labels G.E. as the world's second largest company as ranked by Forbes Global. Forbes Global does not rank companies just based on their size but also on their assets, sales, profits and market capitalization. G.E. has a market capitalization of $370 billion USD which is larger than any other firm in the world. This makes it the largest company in the world based on market value. Forbes Global only lists the "leading companies" in the world which by its very nature is POV since it is Forbes' opinion. As such, I think the sentence should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.123.80 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2007

Isn't GE the second largest company by market cap? ExxonMobil has overtaken them at over $400B.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.92.35 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2007

The page now says third largest, which was true at 31/3/08, but has since been overtaken as per Reuters <http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL0861910920080508?source=cmailer> I've added comment dating the comment to 31/3/08 as i dont think its worth updating its ranking whihc by its nature will float about all the time. I sugget this should be updated quarterly, or monthly at most 202.74.162.26 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Phen

[edit] CEO

I renamed the "Jeff Immelt" section--it seems to me that "CEO" as a section heading is more to the point in a GE entry. Cyrusc 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link

Moved link from main article. Does this satisfy WP:EL?

Ǣ0ƞS 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


I moved the link back because I believe the videos and applications on this site contain meaningful relevant content (as specified in the WP:EL) about GE that could not be otherwise incorporated into the article

Umpteee 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-removing the link. The site is full of thinly veiled POV statements and implications and does not add to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. ++Arx Fortis 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting it back because the project you are referencing actually offers a variety of points of view which is one way to create neutrality 24.186.187.91 19:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing again. A link to a site of a guy snorting cocaine and trying to give the company "presents" (such as a broken light bulb and toenail clippings in a jar) is hardly encylopedic and does not belong on the aritcle. The link would be more appropriate for encyclopediadramatica.com. ++Arx Fortis 21:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality must be created in the article, not through external links. Since the target link is an ongoing project, it would be better wait for the author to reach the end of his project, such that he may condense all the information gathered and present it in a more useful way (an academic article for example). Also, the site lacks information whether it is a university project, commercial project or private project as well as how it licenses its contents. Ǣ0ƞS 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I worry that an academic article would be far less instructive and engaging than the interactive multimedia currently available on the site. It seems foolish not to use the full capabilities of the internet to disseminate information through increasingly creative and participatory means. Further, the participatory nature of the project suggests to me that it may be ongoing indefinetly; we will wait in vain for any kind of end. Also the project clearly identifies itself as an art work. For all these reasons I am re-linking. Thank you for the lively dialogue. AshevillePromise 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Like Don Novello's The Lazlo Letters? I mean in the correspondence section Samwell Freeman (the creator of the site) asks questions of GE such as "Under the law, the General Electric Corporation, like all corporations, enjoys the same rights, privileges, and protections of an individual person. In the case of GE is this legal person a male or a female? And does it have a sexual orientation or preference? What about a favorite food?" and "Throughout its history, General Electric has maintained an average annual growth rate of 5%. After 126 years of growing do you think the corporation is tired?". It's like a goof. It's like Crank Yankers. It has no encyclopedic value that I can see. (Disclaimer: I have a relationship with GE Fanuc Automation, a subsidiary of GE, but I try to maintain a neutral POV.) --Ishi Gustaedr 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not art...it's someone with a thinly disguised anti-GE agenda trying to get 15 minutes of fame. Arx Fortis 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


The question is not if it is art. The question is whether or not the link provides "meaningful relevant content" as the WP:EL clearly states. The site unequivocally provides such material. There is no specification that content cannot contain humor. 71.198.67.185 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling and let it be. It simply does not belong in this article. The participant's illicit drug use and the general stupidity of the videos removes any objective, serious credibility from that site. ++Arx Fortis 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, WP:EL also states that "Links mainly intended to promote a website" should be avoided. This is clearly the case here. ++Arx Fortis 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion of the material does not determine its merit. The material clearly is relevant and belongs in the article as many other contributors have noted. Since the site has no advertisements and makes no money it is hard to understand how this link is promoting it. It seems you are the one who is trolling and ought to let it be.

AshevillePromise 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your opinion of the material does not determine its merit." But yours does?? .....also, "Many users"??? You mean you [5], Umpteee [6], 71.198.67.185 [7], and 24.186.187.91 [8]? Odd how these "many users" all seem to edit primarly ONE article....this one....and with the minor exception of Umpteee, all started editing the same article in the same month and have the same opinion of the link being discussed. ++Arx Fortis 05:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The link belongs. Umpteee 04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does not. Don't add it again. (I've written more on the talk page of "Umpteee".) -- Hoary 05:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your fascist like attitude is showing. Are you afraid that of a link you can't control? Tarragon1998 22:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GE Enterprise Solutions

According to the press release Begley to Lead GE Enterprise Solutions, it looks like GE Industrial is being broken up into two businesses: GE Enterprise Solutions and GE Consumer & Industrial. De wo know if Consumer & Industrial will be the name of that business? --Ishi Gustaedr 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it looks like GE Industrial will still exist as a business unit. Aside from GE Consumer & Industrial, there are other businesses report to Trotter (FANUC, Equipment Services, etc.). It looks like perhaps two new businesses will be created, and GE Industrial will still exist. I imagine the name GE Consumer and Industrial will change to avoid confusion with GE Industrial. I can't find any information on it. I would expect an announcement eventually. ++Arx Fortis 04:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. First let me say I have a little trouble talking about this because I don't know what to call things. I'll use primary business unit to refer to the businesses such as GE Industral, GE Infrastructure, GE Consumer Finance, etc. That's what Template:General_Electric calls them. The main article calls them businesses or divisions. I'll call the next level down secondary business units. The GE Industrial page calls them sub-businesses while the GE Infrastructure and GE Healthcare pages call them business units. Sorry if I'm just making up names at this point.
The GE Industrial page lists the current secondary business units that that make up GE Industrial. All of those, according to the article, with the exception of Consumer & Industrial, will be part of the new GE Enterprise Solutions. At the end of the year, according to the article, "they [Begley and Campbell] will report to Immelt". I took this to mean that both GE Enterprise Solutions and Consumer & Industrial will be primary business units. I don't see anything left in GE Industrial at that point.
This table shows what I think is the state of things, although I very well could be mistaken.

Before 2007-08-01

  • GE (Immelt)
    • GE Industrial (Trotter)
      • GE Consumer & Industrial (Campbell)
      • GE Equipment Services
      • GE Fanuc Automation
      • GE Inspection Technologies
      • GE Security
      • GE Sensing

Remainder of 2007?

  • GE (Immelt)
    • GE Industrial (Trotter)
      • GE Consumer & Industrial (Campbell)
      • GE Enterprise Solutions (Begley)
        • GE Equipment Services
        • GE Fanuc Automation
        • GE Inspection Technologies
        • GE Security
        • GE Sensing

After 2007?

  • GE (Immelt)
    • GE Consumer & Industrial (Campbell)
    • GE Enterprise Solutions (Begley)
      • GE Equipment Services
      • GE Fanuc Automation
      • GE Inspection Technologies
      • GE Security
      • GE Sensing
Perhaps, as you say, there will be a more clear announcement later. --Ishi Gustaedr 20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The table you posted makes sense, but I'm confused on what happens to Trotter. To my knowledge, he has not announced an intent to retire or resign. It seems as though some of this reorganization may still be in flux. ++Arx Fortis 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove template

I propose to remove the {{NBC Universal}} template. It clutters the page and NBC Universal is already mentioned as a subsidiary in the {{General Electric}} template. It gets quite messy if all subsidiaries have a template in the parent company's article, particularly for large corporations. Ǣ0ƞS 08:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GE and its Dealings with Iran

  • Why doesn't this article include GE's controversial business dealings with Iran that sends over $50 million dollars a year to Iran? 24.46.123.59 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)