Talk:Siemens AG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siemens AG article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Infobox Links

Guys, the link for Transportation & Automotive on the infobox used to point to Transrapid, but Siemens dosen't only do Transrapid trans, it also manufactures Desiro trains.

I've edited the links now to direct to transportation instead. --Pavithran 11:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Siemens SEO" link

This seems to be spam, doesn't it? I don't actually think the company "Sunlab" [1] is associated with Siemens AG!

No answer yet, so I've temporarily commented the link out.
As far as I know that company does the SearchEngine Optimizing for Siemens, read it in "Wirtschaftswoche (August '06)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.228.102.157 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "the world's largest electronics company"

Is this still correct, although Siemens sold the mobile phone division to BenQ and put the Communications division into a joint venture with Nokia?

I believe General Electric is if you go by revenue taken in this year.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/full_list/
Number 11. ConocoPhilips is an energy company, not an electronics one.
Siemens would be number 2 assuming all other companies above it are not
electronics companies (it's number 22 on the list).
Well, as far as I know, GE isn't an electronics company. According to the Wikipedia article, it's a conglomerate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.138.77.39 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Siemens is also a conglomerate --Pavithran 11:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revenue

According to the Siemens web page, their revenues for fiscal year 2004 were 80,830 millions of euros. I updated the figure on the page, as it appeared to say 80,830 BILLION, which seemed like an astronomical figure. Impaciente 16:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that in English, 1000 million = 1 billion, so the figure would be correct. 189.180.69.125 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to comment on this topic perhaps you should have some international knowledge. The comma in 80,830 Billion Euro actually means the same thing as a decimal for the US. This is the European way. So it is not a mistake only a difference in syntax. The english version should read 80.830 Billion assuming the statistic given is correct.

does anyone have info re: slave labour mentioned in this article

[edit] Company foundation date

The Siemens archive has provided the correct foundation date for the company. Relevant email segments will be added to Talk:Carl Wilhelm Siemens (in a few days). Noisy | Talk 17:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This page needs help

Ive moved the following paragrah here until its sourced or referenced. Agnte 15:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

During World War II, German industries such as Siemens, made the Holocaust possible collaborating with the Third Reich and "Aryanizing" businesses. Siemens used slave labor from concentration camps to build electric switches for military uses. Siemens had many factories in and around famous extermination camps such as Auschwitz. In one of the most horrible examples, 1,500 women from Auschwitz worked in a Siemens factory inside the extermination camp. They actually supplied the electricity to the camp.

In 1999 the following German firms established a fund intended to compensate their victims during the Nazi era: BMW, BASF, DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen, Siemens and Deutsche and Dresdner Banks. Info can be found, among other places: BBC: Siemens sets up Holocaust fund and BBC: Row over Nazi slave fund.

While this does not corroborate speficic examples as given in that section, it's more than enough to require some mention of Siemens' wartime activities. --hack 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Now someone's put a mention of current controversy (Oil for Food) into the paragraph about pre-WW2 and WW2 history. Someone's trying to sneak in an unreferenced allegation. This needs to be rewritten -- perhaps create a "Controversies" section?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.108.119 (talk • contribs)
Should there be some mention of Siemens' role in the construction of the Ardnacrusha power station in Ireland? At the time it was the largest hydroelectric power station in Europe and was crucial to the development of Ireland, which at the time was newly independent. It was also, I've been told, a great ad for the capacity of Germans, and Siemens in particular, to carry out such a huge task at a time when Germany was also crippled after the First World War.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.230.250 (talk • contribs)
Don't forget you can sign your posts with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~
--h2g2bob 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Added (very) brief mention of "slave labour" in the History, just so theres some mention. --h2g2bob 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted the above paragraph due to being able to scource it to Clause Lanzmann's book and documentary Shoah, and having been there.

I took out some of the more inflammatory words -- "made the holocaust possible" and "horrible example". The first is pure speculation (I think the holocaust would have occurred with or without Siemens' contributions), and the second is non-objective, even if it's a generally. accurate statement. It's not a direct quotation, so I don't think there's any issue in removing the aforementioned author's enraged prose. 134.117.146.30 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bribery Investigation

How is a bribery investigation of upper management irrevelant to an understanding of the company? A section on this topic has been deleted repeatedly. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course its relevant. Does Siemens edit these pages? now more on that has been added again. --84.150.79.32 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
reverted -- it's a violation of WP:NPOV to dedicate a majority of the article to negative press. also check out WP:RECENT. /Blaxthos 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we surely don't talk about "the majority of the article" here. As for POV, that's your POV. The text deleted by you is substantiated by references more than any other part of the article. The "recentism" seems to be a more valid point and you could show how to improve. Of course, just deleting text is easier. Blaxthos (who is "we"?), could you give an example on how to complete the BenQ story? --84.150.94.129 19:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
From WP:RECENT: «Rather than being thought of as a sufficient argument for article deletion, allegations of recentism should be considered a symptom of the editorial process and an argument for further improvement and refinement of thought through discussion of where the content may belong. Recentism is often cited as one of many elements of Wikipedia's problematic systemic bias, but this bias may be the result of the difficult editorial decisions in documenting controversy as it happens. Recentism can be thought of as a feature of the dynamic editing process, and may not necessarily be always negative.
Articles accused of recentism need not be deleted; they should be revised to become more balanced and timeless. The aim should not be to remove notable information about recent events (see wikipedia:deletionism and wikipedia:inclusionism), but to add information of the same detail to other events. If an article becomes difficult to use because of its length, that should be countered by structuring the article better. Wikipedians are reminded that sometimes in-depth information on current events is more appropriately added to Wikinews.»
As for "bad press". If the facts are bad, then "bad press" is the result. The "recent" bad news cover a long history of corruption. None of it shows in the Siemens article. What kind of encyclopedia is this?--84.150.94.129 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Annother try: This time only a very small and very well documented part of the article covers the bad facts (which deservedly got "bad press"). --84.150.94.129 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many non-existent article links

In the "Some of Siemens' recently acquired companies" section, every company is set up as a Wiki link, although almost all of them do not exist. I cleaned up some of them by linking to an external website. More cleanup would be appreciated. Truthanado 03:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Siemens financed a "friendly" semi union

In February 2007 the task force "Amigo" of the Nürnberg state attorny put Wilhelm Schelsky, the head of the employees association and semi union AUB into custody. The AUB (German Wikipedia: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Unabhängiger Betriebsangehöriger) is not really a union, but an association for "moderate" works council members. As a consultant to Siemens, Schelsky received 14.75 million Euro from Siemens without having delivered documented services. Allegations that Siemens helped to build up a "friendly" workers association were substantiated in March 2007: At least 2.5 million (Heise Online News: Siemens said to have bought the goodwill of members of works councils, 2007-03-13) Euro had been funelled from Siemens via Schelsky to the semi union which was created as competitor to the dominating labor union IG Metall. Schelsky "disputes the notion that he was supposed to create a tame and lame union for Siemens" (International Herald Tribune: Bribery trial deepens Siemens woes, 2007-03-13). This story started in the mid-Seventies and influenced elections of works concils not only within Siemens (which ist against the law in Germany). WP:RECENT would not apply. Should this story be mentioned in the Siemens article? --84.150.94.129 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I entered some info on this issue in the article --84.150.92.193 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Neutrality

I removed the "disputed neutrality" tag as no reference to that tag was made in the talk-page. - By the way, the bad news are generated by Siemens, not by those who report the news. The information given in this Siemens article about bribery etc. covers only a very small part of what came up in Germany. The responsibility for a damaged reputation is fully with Siemens. Can you believe, that the top management didn't notice >35 Million euro given away by Joachim Feldmayer to a tame bogus union (yes, this is POV; but whatch what they did - or what they blocked) over many years? Well, in case they really didn't know, then what kind of managers would that be? 84.150.72.98 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this comment right here validates my point -- you seem to have an axe to grind, and certainly aren't neutral. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. /Blaxthos 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You may interpret that as validating your point as you like, but it doesn't. It's simple: I just clarify, that bad news in this case are generated by Siemens, not by the reporting. Seriously, I am not neutral (you probably aren"t too), but I try to write in a neutral way (you may know better how to do that). Where I failed, please help to improve the text without deleting the facts. 84.150.75.220 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


"84.150.72.98 "--Neutrality has two parts: facts, and the way you state the facts. It must have both a well supported, factual citation that can be verified and a journalistic, straight-to-the-point (read: without outrage, no matter how justified) "voice".
Thank you, by the way, for adding a source for the AUB detail in the "Corruption" section.
Anyhow, it's plain you feel strongly about this topic and likely with good reason, but please understand that when people dispute the neutrality of points in this article, they're not disputing whether or not these things are FACTS, but how those facts are being presented. There are a great many places in this article (still) where the facts are unsourced, poorly sourced, or phrased in such a way that they're very emotive (i.e., "Supported Hitler").
As a person who is plainly very passionate about the truth, think very seriously about the disservice you might be doing the truth by presenting it in an inflammatory fashion, then ranting and railing against those who want to help the truth be presented in the best light: that is, want to phrase and source the facts in a way that gives them the greatest chance of being taken seriously, and also to prevent those facts from being diluted by unverified and emotionally coloured additions.
The facts are strong enough and--if that's your aim--damning enough on their own. State them simply and plainly. Source them with relevant and credible material. Defend them just as simply--when it's a fact and it's sourced AND it's stated plain, it's iron-clad; no one can touch it.
For instance, using words to luridly describe the situation at Siemens as a "culture of bribe" is worthy of a tabloid or a penny dreadful, not unbiased journalism. The facts are lurid enough on their own--no one needs to be led to the conclusion that something's rotten in the boardroom: with the facts, they'll realise this on their own.
The whole reason for NPOV is not to keep corrupt corporations from public shame--it's to make sure that facts are taken seriously. When your bias is obvious from your choice of words, people write you off immediately. When your bias is obvious, you come across as no more credible and no more trustworthy than a Siemens press release.
Siemens made the bad news. Now, are you willing to exercise the judgment and restraint required to make sure people believe it?
Best wishes,
Wysdom 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. - If I remember well, the "culture of bribe" and "supporded Hitler" wasn't written by me. Also this is not about damning Siemens. But I wondered, why rather unimportant (measurable: e.g. less money involved) facts were mentioned (stipendia, formula one etc.) and the facts which emerged in the recent months were missing.
Best regards
84.150.75.220 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Beyond the inflammatory way in which the information is conveyed, there is entirely too much spin (analysis/POV) and too much information. As I mentioned originally, it's taken over a major portion of the article's size, which is inappropriate (undue weight clause, NPOV, and recentism). A mention of notable controversies, court proceedings, etc is appropriate. Every accusation, funds transfer, layoff, and comparisons to Hitler are not. I strongly suggest that the content inserted by the anonymous editors be thoroughly cited, verifiried, and reviewed for NPOV and notability. /Blaxthos 05:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Reality seems to be worse than what I wrote her. The mess, Siemens is in, is beyond my imagination. 84.150.126.165 00:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] redirect of Siemens

Siemens has been redirecting here for quite a while and was switched to the dab page recently. I have reversed that and started a discussion at Talk:Siemens. Join the conversation if you are interested. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Product list

Just added the Advia hematology system and alphabetized that section to clean it up a bit. Garffreak (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)