Talk:General Electric/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 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)

Contents

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)