Jump to content

Talk:General Electric/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

most of the current text is blatantly copied from http://www.ge.com/en/company/companyinfo/at_a_glance/history_story.htm - Alex.tan 17:22, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

schema-root.org

This link looks fishy to me. It was added at the bottom of Boeing as well. -Joseph (Talk) 03:45, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Income

"for the past 4 years has had the highest or second-highest income (loosely thought of as profit) of any company in the world." This is not true. - Jerryseinfeld 01:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Analyst

This is what someone wrote: "Analyst coverage - Minor players in the financial industry do not need to be linked". They make several hundred thousand per year, that may not be much to you, but I want to know who they are. Especially since they're on the calls every time.--Jerryseinfeld 04:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete them. I delinked them. My whole thing was that they're not worth linking to because they're not a prominent entity. It's fine to put their names though. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:10, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
A "prominent entity"? What are you talking about?--Jerryseinfeld 15:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's a metric...not exactly quantifiable...on whether or not an individual merits a separate article. Many of the bio articles are subjected to it. That's all I'm talking about. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:43, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Edison invented the bulb?

In 1876, Thomas Alva Edison opened a new laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey. Out of the laboratory was to come perhaps the most famous invention of all—a successful development of the incandescent electric lamp.

This sentence sound very certain. The issue seem controversial to me. Some says he perfected [1] other say he invented. What is the real truth behind the issue. I suggest we improve the article by clearly stating both assertions

Awkward structure

It seems to me that the line "In 1987, GE was the United States' second largest nuclear power company and third largest producer of nuclear weapons systems" does not really belong under the short blurb related to Jack Welch - perhaps it should be included under GE subsidiaries? Also I think the Diversity section, which is composed of one sentance of GE as a good company for working mothers, should be removed because it is so minimal and does not adequately address diversity (working mothers is a small section of a general diverse workplace). Finally, I think that the section about Jack Welch is redundant because the information is/can be included in his Wiki page. He should in the History section, but does not deserve his own section. Any thoughts? Tkessler 05:38, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improvement Drive

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

GE Electric in Australia?

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

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

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

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)

Brand

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

Ecomagination?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, here are a few links: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Most of these are from notable environment friendly third parties. Infact i tried to find criticism of the initiative, but could not find any. Its a fact that GE has pledged actual big money on this initiative. It will be great to hear the other side of the story from somebody who knows, though.. -- Lost 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Original Dow member?

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

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

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)

Subsidiary

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

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

No mention of GECIS or GENPACT

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

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

Acquisitions

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

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

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

Really ugly template

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

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

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

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

Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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)

New Zeland???

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

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

AfD: Not notable

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

How could you say a company founded by Thomas Edison, now with 330,000 employees worldwide isn't notable? Arx Fortis 04:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So Wikipedians say: I am not intimately familiar with it, therefore it is not notable. The article on my company Chapter Zero was deleted with similar reasoning. I'm just trying to keep Wikipedia guideline enforcement consistent. If no one objects I'm going to mark this as 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)

Analyst Coverage

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

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

General Electric Founder

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

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

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

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

Old conversation, but I'll add Hogan, John (1986), A Spirit Capable: The Story of Commonwealth Edison, Mobium Press, ISBN 0-916371-04-2. Pages 29-34 summarize the consolidation of Thomas A. Edison Company into Edison General Electric, thence (after Edison's departure) into General Electric Company. It is not very clear, though, since the focus at that point in the book is on Samuel Insull. Morrand (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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 [6], Umpteee [7], 71.198.67.185 [8], and 24.186.187.91 [9]? 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)

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)

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)

GE and its Dealings with Iran

This is relevant: http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/04/keith-olbermann-gives-contradictory-statement-to-glenn-greenwald/ Look around for the background to this, there's lots more info and articles out there, ones that are more reliable I would say than that one, but I link to that one because it just happens to be the one I have open in a tab right now. 91.110.248.184 (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Although it is on topic, it doesn't exactly directly relate GE dealings with Iran but rather argumentation over the alleged dealings of Iran and GE.--@Discover10 00:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What They Do

Anyone interested in including a section in the article about what they actually do? D prime (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in Article?

Anybody else notice that this article reads a lot like an advertisement? Just glancing through the first few paragraphs:

"GE, which was a conglomerate long before the term was coined, is arguably the most successful organization of this type."

It was my understanding that encyclopedias dealt with facts, not points which could be argued. Acknowledging it as "very successful" would be sufficient.

"In 1876, Ohio-born Thomas Edison opened a new laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey. Out of the laboratory came arguably one of the most famous inventions of all—a practical incandescent electric lamp. By 1890, Edison had organized his various businesses into the Edison General Electric Company."

This reads like something that came right off GE's webpage (which I am not discounting). Again, facts are needed here, not rhetoric.

155.8.89.2 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it did come right off the web page: [12]. I'll delete that right away--but don't have time to inspect carefully right now.Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As it says in the archive, there is no information given in the article about GE's military contracts, past or present. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

CEO

I eliminated this sentence from the CEO chapter: "Currently Jeffrey Immelt is trying to clean up the financial mess left over from the Jack Welch era. Because of the unbalanced ratios left by Mr. Welch, GE lost its AAA credit rating."

The reasons are obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.168.194 (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

你好，听说你们那里性开放。我想去你们那找姑娘！ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.252.6.207 (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Labor relations

Not a single word about labor-management relations or unions in the whole article? What bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.117.52 (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentence on www.ge.com in the article

Okay, I do believe that we should remove the "enhanced" and "famous" bits of the sentence as unsourced non-neutral statements, but the fact that G.E. has one of the oldest short domain names is most probably notable enough to be mentioned in the article. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of argument and starting from the original statement, removing what's not cited or is someone's personal opinion, we're left with "The value of the brand is enhanced by the ownership of the famous and very short GE.com domain name which was registered August 5, 1986, years before Internet became known to the public, a performance which places General Electric on Rank 3 of the VB.com Internet Hall of Fame.[1]" What remains looks like just plain WP:REFSPAM – an uninteresting factoid about when the domain was registered, then a generous plug and link for vb.com. Sorry, but it doesn't belong. User:79.97.92.11 should be thanked for removing it, and any similar mentions of vb.com in Wikipedia should be removed as well. --CliffC (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. It is always good to start a discussion on a contested change, etc., so that you can get the input of others. Thanks! [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

templates

Hi. I removed a mispelled template in a recent edit - I think the correct tempate should have been Template:NBC Universal - if this is a valid template please re-add.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Section removal

diff

==Controversy over media ownership== {{POV|date=June 2011}} Of the major corporations that dominate and control the American media landscape, the company, General Electric is one of the largest and most influential. In 2009 its revenue was as high as $157 billion, ranking it among the largest earning of the media owning companies.<ref>[http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main Ownership Chart: The Big Six]</ref> General Electric’s media-related holdings include networks such as: NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, 26 television stations in the United States, and cable networks MSNBC, Bravo, and Sci Fi channel. In addition, it also owns 80 percent of NBC Universal.<ref>[http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html Think and Ask, 2004]</ref> General Electric has been the center of a great deal of controversy due to its massive ownership and control of media sources. General Electric has been considered by many to be by no means a hands off owner of NBC.<ref name="Beder, Sharon">[http://www.herinst.org/envcrisis/media/ownership/nbc.html Beder, Sharon]</ref> Its power of ownership has been evident through the censorship and control of information displayed by the media sources that it controls. For instance, NBC journalists have a record of not pointing out GE’s environmental record.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> In addition, when a group named INFACT created commercials urging the boycott of GE products, the commercials were banned from being aired on NBC.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> In 1990, NBC Nightly News ran a fourteen minute coverage over a three day span about a breast cancer detection machine produced by GE, without mentioning the fact that it was produced by NBC’s owners. Meanwhile, the device did not receive any coverage by any of the other major news networks.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> General Electric has also come under criticism and controversy for its influence over other media sources that it does not own. It has been able to influence other media through its advertising and sponsorship.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> It cutoff a multimillion dollar deal to fund Audubon TV specials when its special on logging and ranching encouraged a campaign threatening to boycott GE products.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> In addition, PBS was a beneficiary of sponsorship by GE when it decided not to screen the Oscar winning documentary, Deadly Deception: General Electric, Nuclear Weapons, and Our Environment. The reason that PBS gave for not airing the documentary was that it was financed by INFACT, which was boycotting GE.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> General Electric also uses its media control to improve its environmental image. It spends millions of dollars on commercials and sponsorship on TV programs to ensure its environmentally friendly image.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> In addition to commercials, it also uses its ability to censor media information. In 1995 GE was sued by the environmental group Ozone Action for advertising its refrigerators as “ozone safe,” when in reality they utilized ozone-depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> GE has portrayed itself as an environmentally friendly company despite numerous occurrences that prove otherwise. Four of its factories are on the EPA’s list of most dangerous industrial sources of toxic air pollution. It has also been sued in several states for environmental destruction ranging from radioactive waste found in sewage to the dumping of PCB’s into rivers.<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> GE was also subject to one of the highest PCB fines ever and had its PCB handling license suspended due to “unreasonable risk to human health and environment.”<ref name="Beder, Sharon"/> Yet, despite all of these instances GE is still ranked as one of the top ten companies in Environmental Reputation, a rank that many have attributed to its media clout.<ref>[http://www.herinst.org/envcrisis/media/ownership/nbc.html Beder, Sharon]</ref>

The issue here is that the entire section relies on a single source, yet makes claims such as has been considered by many. This topic way well be notable and need a section or article on it. But the section above is not suitable. Any enviromental problems might be better covered by concentrating on the facts, rather than an alledge attempt to censor media coverage. Thanks.83.100.225.131 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge of GE Lighting to General Electric

A recently created article GE Lighting has been created. I think it is too short for its own article, and it would be find a pile of non-advertising information. Thoughts? --Thompson.matthew (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's probably a notable article in it in the future, (17,000 employees is quite a lot).
It's also quite a notable company as part of GE's early history - eg see http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/conferences/institute/history.htm
It's a sort of successor to the National Electric Lamp Company (related to the National Electric Light Association [13]) - both articles could be combined with the older company being part of the history section, also Nela Park is a potential merge as section "headquarters".
There's some intertesting history that could be included in an article about GE Lighting division eg http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WnSA0MhW-qgC&pg=PA27&dq=National+Electric+Lamp+Association+ge&hl=en&ei=mN0qTqLCG4jX8gOGje31Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false , and plenty more sources google books There's also quite a lot been written about "GE lighting"
The article has potential, but I don't object to a merge in its current state.Imgaril (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow! I'm surprised! No harm leaving it, as long as it has references. --Thompson.matthew (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
ok I've removed the merge tag, and tidied it up a bit.Imgaril (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent Controversies section

In March 2011, The New York Times reported that despite earning $14.2 billion in worldwide profits, including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations, General Electric did not owe taxes in 2010. General Electric had a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. This same article also pointed out that despite their continually diminishing tax liability since the 1990s, GE has laid off one-fifth of their American workers since 2002.[42]

This statement that GE owed no taxes in 2010 is misleading...perhaps correct to state they owed no US Federal level taxes...


65.90.67.4 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resources

99.190.85.209 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

30 rock

In the 'Notable appearances in media' section, is the info about 30 Rock relevant? I'm not a big follower of the show (seen a few here and there), so for anyone who does watch it a lot: Do they ever make any reference to GE? If not, then it seems like a bit of a stretch to call that a notable appearance in the media. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:General Electric logo.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:General Electric logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:General Electric logo.svg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

these pictures suck

lets work on some new ones, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.114.52 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Phoebus cartel

GM's involvement should be mentioned in the article, in history section, not only as a link below the article. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Acquisitions and spin-offs etc.

The section on mergers etc. is disorganized and repetitive. In particular, the dealings with Comcast seem to be overly repeated again and again unnecessarily, making it repetitive. Kdammers (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Founded

i dont know when it was founded, but my granddad, in about 1950, worked for General Electric, meaning that it was founded before 1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.92.151 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove "peacock" section

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=General_Electric&diff=605904448&oldid=605903904

As it was the section was almost 100% "corporate promotion" and did not increase understanding in a neutral way. It was not written in a way appropiate for an encyclopedia and much of the content was not suitable. Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

GE & Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia: Pre WW2 / Global Corporatism & Profits

Wouldn't it be proper in the interest of neutrality to list the connections to both Weimar/Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? No judgements needed (E.G., Soviet Russia being electrified by G.E. has no moral bearing).

But it is part of GE's history and should be mentioned, also that GE's products were used on US and Russian soldiers in the war.

Similar to how the article ignores much of Edison's founding involvement - General Electirc became General Electric AFTER it was Edison's General Electric (Per History channel documentary - I leave more thorough research to others. The documentary was on the "robber barons", not on G.E.) Condier, though, that GE itself acknowledges that detail: http://www.ge.com/about-us/history/thomas-edison.

-Bill Cruice

(Minor legal note: It is IMPOSSIBLE to sign away your rights, esp. in perpetuity, so the acknowledgement below: "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution" - this is impossible. Otherwise, slave contracts would be legal... Just run it by legal. It's the "irrevocably" part, I believe. Not likely to come up in court, but might as well note it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.175.26 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Creation of article "Pollution of the Hudson River"

For reasons described at Talk:Pollution of the Hudson River#About this article I created the article Pollution of the Hudson River. I have deleted the content in this article which was covering this topic and replaced the content which was here with the lede of that pollution article and a link to the pollution article.

I propose that anyone with comments post them at that article, because multiple articles had been covering the topic of "pollution of the Hudson River", and I likewise have directed them all to that article. It is best to post there because this new pollution article affects several articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding index component italics

I italicized the index component links (Dow Jones, S&P). If that is not what you want, please remove it. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 23:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(Let me be the first to reply to your talk page comment by saying) I undid your edit because it is inconsistent with other use of the company infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:1D02:44D7:D1B3:67F2:1AA0:BE51 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lifetime Award?

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but the "Lifetime award from United for a Fair Economy" seems horribly misleading to me. Instead of being a positive award, the actual award is for BAD work practices. The wording at the introduction obfuscates this idea.

ChunyangD (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to be confused with

The opening should say "not to be confused with Edison Illuminating Company" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Illuminating_Company. Because that company is often called Edison Electric Illuminating Company, which is too close to Edison Electric Company.Anorlunda (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on General Electric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ExIm scandal

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/97/allen/media/1139/statementgeclosing.pdf http://freebeacon.com/issues/state-rep-says-general-electric-told-him-to-lie-about-ex-im-bank/

It's BLP, so I'm staying out of it. Hcobb (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on General Electric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Relocation to Boston

How does all this figure with Boston's aggressive work to mitigate expected sea level rise, as it has published it on the City of Boston website, under Greenovate Boston?[2][3][4]

Recent data suggest that the rate of sea-level rise is increasing. Projections of sea-level rise for Boston range from 2 feet to as much as 6 feet by the end of the century, depending on how fast ice in Greenland and Antarctica melt.

Fairfield, Connecticut is vulnerable, but the Boston Seafront in South Boston is maximally vulnerable.[5][6] Is General Electric managed by climate deniers?MaynardClark (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The end of the century is 84 years away, so there's no hurry. Many buildings don't last that long anyway. - BilCat (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
MaynardClark, please note that talk pages are not forums, and that your statements are actually off-topic. However, I judged your comments to be in good faith, especially as you have included sources, and of concern to people holding your views, and I responded in kind. If responding here, please focus on editing the article itself, rather than the topic of Climate Change and its effects on Boston Harbor. If GE is working with the City of Boston in some way to protect the Harbor as part of its HQ move, as revealed by any reliable published sources, then it's possible that such info could be included in the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ VB.com Internet Hall of Fame
  2. ^ Sea Level in Boston Harbor, City of Boston website, accessed 1/17/2016
  3. ^ A Climate of Progress: City of Boston Climate Action Plan Update 2011, Update Report
  4. ^ Climate Ready Boston: Municipal Vulnerabilty to Climate Change
  5. ^ General Electric's new Boston location wasn't always so hot, William J. Kole, Associated Press, Jan. 14, 2016, 2:35 PM, accessed 01/17/2016
  6. ^ Rising water levels threaten Boston’s waterfront

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on General Electric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on General Electric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Electric. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on General Electric. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Headquarters

According to the GE fact sheet, the current headquarters is in Boston, not three cities, but just Boston. Of course, GE hasn't relocated all its headquarters personnel to Boston (yet), but still the fact remains that the HQ address is only in Boston.

Now, if anyone wants to address nuances related to HQ personnel working in other cities during the transition, perhaps that can be done in a limited, well-sourced manner. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jenimcphersoncow:, please read the above. If you have cites that counteract GE's own fact sheet, please list them here. Note that headquarters personnel haven't all relocated to the official new headquarters yet, and this is understood. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That fact sheet is a simplified version for shareholders and doesn't list many facts. They have no plans to move schenectady headquarters http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2016/jan/13/ge-add-100-new-jobs-niskayuna/?dgzrg. Fairfield is the main corportate headquarters until at least 2018, after that it will still be a headquarters for many divisions of ge (capital corporate). Boston won't be corporate center until 2018, it is not the current headquarters. http://www.crains.com/article/ge-packs-markets-fairfield-hq-boston-move-imminent Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jenimcphersoncow: There is only one main headquarters, and on their fact sheet, it is shown as Boston. We're not talking about where headquarters jobs are located but the official location of such. If you can't trust GE's own fact sheet, what can you trust? Also, it's bad form to revert against the strongest possible reliable source, and might be seen as disruptive in nature. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You can trust that fact sheet Steve but they do not have one main heaquarters and it does not say any such thing. GE consists of 5 vastly different divisions, 3 are headquarterd in fairfield, 1 is headquartered in schenectady, and 1 is headquartered in boston. All three are GE's official headquarters. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, but can you trust the Crain's article you just posted? It says (in July): "The company will declare Boston its official corporate home next month". So, I say we not argue against two hard sources, OK? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, this article is about the company as a whole. Division HQs are a different matter. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It is an official corporate headquarters but it's not the only one. Neither article claims that. No that is incorrect. There are 5 corporate headquarters and 9 different subsidaries between them, each with their own offices and headquarters. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, this article is about the whole, global company, and check out this article that includes this official tweet from GE: "Today GE’s Global Headquarters officially moved to Boston. We’re happy to be here!". What don't you get about this? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

How about I work at one of their global corporate headquarters? What part of different corporate headquarters do you not understand? Not to mention it's unheard of for any fortune 500 company having one coporate headquarters. Most have at least two. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No there is no "main" corporate headquarters and most of the staff moving to Boston will be in Fairfield until at least 2018. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, it appears we are at loggerheads. Would you be willing to consider a third opinion? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering it appears I'm the only one who knows what they're talking about, no. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, but I should make you aware that I can jump to another approach, Request for Comment, which can be done without your agreement, whereby the consensus, if determined, will be practically enforced. Wouldn't you rather try a softer approach at this point? Perhaps another person will be able to review this and offer a position that satisfies both of us. How about we give WP:Third opinion a try? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have all day to sit here and contribute, what do you not understand? Why do you feel like my sources are not as clear as they are?Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Because my sources and the Crain's source you brought here make the single global headquarters for GE as a whole being in Boston rather obvious. At any rate, since I believe the content as currently presented is incorrect, we are going to have to push toward a solution one way or another. And it doesn't have to be resolved today. Will it be a third opinion or RfC? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

GE's headquarters are in Fairfeild, Schenectady, and now Boston. No other headquarters are corporate headquarters. Diamondscientist67 (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

We are talking about GE's global headquarters above everything else. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My sources prove clearly what I'm saying is correct. Your sources don't refute anything mine claim. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My sources, two of which come directly from GE, are about as strong as it can get. I find it interesting that you would argue against your own company's official tweet and their fact sheet. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well there's your second opinion Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

From a three-edit new account. I think it's obvious that your characterization is not in good faith. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know them and I've only presented facts to you. You can refute our claims but don't tell me I created my account just to appease you. Diamondscientist67 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If I didn't know the truth then I wouldn't be wasting time with you on a talk page. If I was trying to vadalise this page I wouldn't have sources or know where I could find sources to back my claim. I don't see how my charactarization would not be in good faith. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No you don't have any sources from ge that suggest otherwise and you won't find any because there isn't a "main" headquarters. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and revert

To follow up from previous discussion, yesterday I reported Jenimcphersoncow as a sockpuppet master of the sockpuppet Diamondscientist67, who brought in a false "second opinion" on this matter.

Also, I have reverted back to the previous Boston HQ version of the article and added a second hard reliable source to back up the fact that GE's (top corporate) global headquarters is in Boston as of August 22. Any changes against hard reliable sources is disruptive and unfair to readers, who expect to read well-sourced facts. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That is not the top corporate headquarters nor will it be in the near future. There is no "top" or "main" headquarters. Yes there were employess that started the Boston office in August but in no way is it the main headquarters.Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Jenimcphersoncow, the only sources you've presented both state that GE is moving its corporate/global headquarters to Boston. Please stop edit warring or you risk being blocked. - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That is simply not true both sources only mention opening a coporate headquarters in Boston. There are 3 global headquarters and those sources prove that as well. Jenimcphersoncow (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please quote those passages stating that there are three global headquarters, because I'm not seeing them there. Both sources, [14] and [15], talk of moving the corporate/global headquarters to Boston. - BilCat (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Even in the face of the hardest of reliable sources, this idea of "3 global headquarters" persists. There is only one General Electric parent company, and that's what this article is about. GE themselves have declared their HQ to be in Boston as of August 22. Any edits against this fact is disruptive. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 09:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
My gut instinct is that the root of this is some sort of internal GE politics between the divisions. Beyond that I haven't a clue. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there's a misunderstanding that GE's divisions and their separate headquarters are covered in subarticles. Another aspect is that headquarters jobs are not yet centralized at the official HQ site (Boston). A possible compromise, unless anyone would detest the clutter, would be to show underneath the official overall headquarters where headquarters workers are currently located, followed by a list of division headquarters locations. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the desire to compromise. Perhaps the information on division HQs would be okay in the body of the article, but not in the infobox IMO. I think the infobox should just include the corporate headquarters in Boston. An article on an individual division can show that division's HQ, though. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, Bahooka. I was about to add that I don't think there's any precedent that would back up the compromise I was describing but that such a compromise wouldn't be "wrong". We tend to keep infoboxes uncomplicated and list a single headquarters location, like for Ford Motor Company or Yum! Brands.. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

subsidiaries list edits

In subsidiaries list, GE Home and Business no longer exists.

Also, GE Lighting, GE Current, GE Energy Connections, GE Power, GE Renewable Energy and GE Digital are missing from the list.

Here are their URL's

GE Lighting http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/splash.jsp

GE Current http://www.currentbyge.com/

GE Energy Connections http://www.geenergyconnections.com/

GE Power http://www.gepower.com/

GE Renewable Energy https://www.gerenewableenergy.com/

GE Digital http://www.ge.com/digital/

Also, in the redirect of subsidiaries list GE Energy no longer exists as that was broken up into what is now parts of GE Energy Connections, GE Power, GE Renewable Energy and GE Oil and Gas and the name for GE Energy management is now GE Energy Connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.109 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on General Electric. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Electric. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A potential good cite for Computing section

If anyone can access it, there's an article in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (Volume: 17, Issue: 4, Winter 1995) called "The rise and fall of the General Electric Corporation computer department". I have a strong hunch this will go far in backing up the content in the Computing section. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Electric. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Electric. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Added section for 2015-2017 content-marketing campaigns

Hello! I'm currently in a class where we've been asked to contribute to an article based on research we're doing for a final project. I've added a new section and content regarding GE's recent advertising campaigns. Thanks for your thoughts on any improvements. Spsjaggy1 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and please do not use self-serving paid-for-PR like this piece of garbage as through it were some kind of independent, reliable source. Jytdog (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Well, I wasn't trying to add original research, but 'essay like' - sure. That's the mode my academic brain is in right now. But, spam? That's harsh. While I'm grateful for your suggestions, you might have acknowledged my student status and addressed my attempt to add content with a bit more strategic guidance instead of insults. A little kindness goes a long way. Spsjaggy1 (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Essay-like content is not OK. The claim that "the company is able to promote the importance of its technology focus to an audience that may not be aware of its involvement in the domain" is your own conclusion and is OR. The first two refs are spam; the first one is especially horrible. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'll take what I wrote and add it to my research paper (where it belongs) without the spam refs. Appreciate the clarification, but I still think you need to work a little on your feedback approach... Spsjaggy1 (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
You poured pollution into this beautiful thing we are all trying to build.Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't my intention to do so. Carry on with your build. Spsjaggy1 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Jytdog - I know that it can be frustrating dealing with new editors, however please remember not to WP:BITE the newbies! Calling the source a piece of garbage just came across as harsh and can run the risk of running off a student editor that may want to edit after the assignment is over. They may not have been aware of the site's nature.
Spsjaggy1, the reason that the source from The Medium is considered to be unusable as a source is because the site allows companies to sponsor articles. What this means is that since the company is paying for the article, anything that is in it should be considered a little suspect and at the very least, a primary source. It's generally not a good idea to use press releases and sponsored posts for articles since they will often "puff up" accomplishments and gloss over any unflattering content in an attempt to make them look as good as possible. While that's not necessarily a bad thing in other places, it is when it comes to Wikipedia (and research projects in general). When looking for sourcing, make sure that you check out the website's "about" page - this is where many sites will disclose whether or not they accept sponsored posts. (Other sites may hide it a little.) They may also mention whether or not they take responsibility for their own content - if they don't, that's usually a big sign that they don't verify or otherwise edit the content beyond looking for spelling or grammatical errors, which means that the site probably would not be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. This last part is why the Forbes source was an issue, as Forbes allows people to blog for their site and do not do any sort of true oversight for the posts - which is why Forbes is almost never seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia except in very specific situations.
I'll go over the sources a little better with you on your talk page since I don't want to make this post too long. I'll also go over tone and essay content as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
See your talk page Shalor. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Electric. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I work for GE Renewable Energy. I'd like to add a link from the Subsidiaries section in the right hand column - 'GE Renewable Energy' is there as text, I'd like to get this changed to a link to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Renewable_Energy page, please.

Thanks Sehlangford (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the links. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

CEO

Updated CEO section under Corporate Affairs to reflect breaking news regarding Flannery’s replacement. Tatoranaki (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Subsidiary in Bermuda

Does anyone know why this was included? If not, we should remove. --Deus Et Machina (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of GE Industrial into General Electric

A former division of GE. It contains very little information. This information is better managed at the main entry. In general, these divisions are little more than than the sums of their parts. At major companies like General Electric, we do best to actually create articles for daughter companies, while skipping the (fluid; in this particular case already dissolved) intermediate level. BTW GE Industrial was created by someone who briefly engaged in the business structure of GE and nothing else. gidonb (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Support the merge; seems like a no-brainer. I can assist in merging if required. GoodCrossing (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Support this merge, it makes complete sense. Usernameisentered (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Fraud Allegations - UK investigation

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Full disclosure, I work for TaxWatch.

In August 2020, we published an article on GE, explaining why the UK's HMRC is accusing GE of fraud.

The Financial Times also did a long piece on the case here.

GE stands accused of taking a loan of $4.9 billion Australian dollars, moving it from the US, to Luxembourg, to the UK, to Australia, and back to the US again, creating something known as a "triple dip" tax advantage. This tax advantage is worth $1bn (USD), which is cited in GE's 2019 10-k.

HMRC accuse GE of misleading them in discussions around this tax advantage, and omitting notes from a meeting.

I believe a section should be added to the 'fraud' part of the GE Wiki, however, given my conflict of interest, I believe someone else should write it.

Happy to answer any questions on the report.

Thanks, --Alex0190 (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Computing

The section on computing is a bit spare. See http://www.dvorak.org/blog/ibm-and-the-seven-dwarfs-dwarf-five-ge/ Kdammers (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spsjaggy1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Alstom

Deal finalised - see Alstom

GE Power and Water merged with acquisition to form new division GE Power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiiophen (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

king of the Seven Dwarves

It' would be useful to reference "King of the Seven Dwarves" By Homer Oldfield...

It's a great history of GE's computer division

https://www.amazon.com/King-7-Dwarfs-Homer-Oldfield/dp/0818673834/ref=la_B001KHVSFI_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479488484&sr=1-1

Having worked at Honeywell's Computer Division, we had a few old timers who were leftovers from GE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Awkward

A sentence in the first paragraph reads: "In 2011, GE ranked among the Fortune 20 as the 14th most profitable company, but later very severely underperformed the market (by about 75%) as its profitability collapsed." Sounds kinda wonky and imprecise. Any help rewording this would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Electric/Archive_1&oldid=1216689004"