Talk:IBM

IBMers?

Is it encyclopedic to refer to IBM employees as IBMers throughout the article? To an outsider this seems distracting and unnecessary, bordering on WP:PROMOTION, when the more straightforward "IBM employees" would do just fine. The article on Google for example doesn't use the term "Googlers" at all. Is there any MoS guideline we can turn to for this? Stonkaments (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Stonkaments A good observation. I'm not sure about a guideline, but I was surprised by a cursory search and the number of sources that refer to them as IMBers Troubadour34 (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

IBM logo color change in 2021

to Vt320 Guy_Harris Can you attach a current IBM logo (black and white colors) to the IBM article, if you can confirm that IBM changed the recommended colors of its logo to black and white?

ITjungle mentioned the new IBM logo in accompanying discussion of the newer IBM i logo in this article.

EWLwiki (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

This is a misunderstanding, there is no new IBM corporation logo. ITjungle used a hastily composed lineage logo collection, included the black-and white metric template as last version from the original page... As you can see in the official source ("8-Bar"), there is no change in recommended colors, blue and black is equally there: "The IBM core colors, consisting of the blue and gray families, are used when applying color specifically to the 8-bar logo." Madacs (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

1939-1945

I notice that, in the history section, no mention is made of anything notable that IBM was doing between the years of 1939 and 1945. I wonder why that is? 🤔 206.195.157.47 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Because this page is astroturfed by IBM and no mention of their actions during the holocaust is allowed 50.39.108.1 (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Q1 labs?

I was looking to find some more information about the company Q1 labs, which was a cybersecurity company founded in Fredericton, New Brunswick. It redirected here, which makes sense as it was later bought out by IBM, but there’s no information on this page about Q1 labs. There’s definitely info out there - there’s a decent amount on the page for Brendan Hannigan, one of the founders - but I’m not sure where that should be aggregated 130.113.109.111 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Picture of headquarters

I removed the picture of the entrance of the Armonk headquarters a while ago, because I don't think it's informative. IBM is quite spread out globally and not much of its personnel is actually located there. On top of that, it's a pretty bad picture with a tree blocking the view of the building. @User:Farzam.akbarian86 added back the picture. Can we reach a consensus on what to do here? PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support the removal of the image File:IBM CHQ - Oct 2014.jpg from the article. General Ization ^Talk 20:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It is quite typical for many companies especially large listed ones to have their headquarters included in the infobox as an illustration. Now that said, this is not exactly a good image especially for one representing the headquarters of a company as big as IBM. So rather I support a better photo. - Imcdc Contact 01:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• I restored the image. I concur with Imcdc, the infobox feels weidly barren without the photo. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it's argualy the best shot possible given the amount of foliage surrounding the main building. The fact that the photo was taken in the dead of fall also helps because there's no leaves to completely crowd out view of the building. Unless they chop down the tree or someone has a drone that can fly over over the complex (dubiously legal) it's good enough. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Paid promotion?

This article looks seriously edited by pro-IBM parties. 93.195.161.235 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove leadership and development section from history

The paragraph about leadership and development, and the paragraph about exceptional contributors, are both out of place and don't belong in the history section, particularly in the area between the 30's and 50's. They have nothing to do with the history of IBM and they certainly don't belong in the section discussing WWII. 192.102.209.46 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Founders

Is Watson Sr. really a cofounder of IBM? Seems like he joined in 1914, but IBM was founded in 1911 by Flint. - Indefensible (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Indefensible: You are correct. He is not. The page has been edited to reflect this.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the update. - Indefensible (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

The section "allegations of racism" cites Tucker Carlson (not a reliable source, for anything) associating DEI programs with "racism". This can't be serious? Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a verified source. Please watch the video. Arvind Krishna has clearly stated he gives bonuses if his gender and ethnic hiring goals are met and if not, the bonuses are not given. Have a look at the entire video. This video of Arvind Krishna is present at many sites. It is indeed him speaking. Sleeplessmason (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the content Fox News is unreliable per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, and the way "racism" is interpreted appears to be original research. The source would need to directly accuse IBM of being racist. —Panamitsu (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not simply delete another editor's contribution. I have adjusted the heading to address your concern, but to simply remove the entire section is improper.

Wikipedia has a well-defined and structured approach for moderating disputes among its contributors.

Discussion here, or 3O, or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

There are other means to resolve your concern. Sleeplessmason (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed the Carlson post and added three, additional citations. I edited the heading to address the concern. Please do not simply remove another editor's content entirely. We can discuss it further here if you wish. Or you can use the path for dispute resolution. 3O or the Noticeboard. Sleeplessmason (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of undocumented perimeters to show key people.

This is the start of a discussion about the use of undocumented perimeters to show key people. WiinterU (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt: please do not use undocumented parameters in this way. The parameters founders and key_people emit microformats, that allow computer programs to parse their content as being of the correct class (in this case, agent, i.e. people involved with the entity). Undocumented parameters don't emit any microformats, meaning programs looking at the infobox are completely blind to these rows of contents. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Currently, the existing parameters are too limited in terms of informing visitors about the most important figures in the company's history. In the case of IBM, it is technically correct that Charles Ranlett Flint but it was Thomas J. Watson who transformed the company into what is today. Likewise,lumping him in the same parameter with people who have only held the top posts in the company for a few years only serves to water down that significance. Towards this end, can you point me in the direction of who I can speak to about expanding the number of documented parameters in the source code?Emiya1980 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is no need to create seperate perimeters for key people. Key people already exists. You aren't helping by making new perimeters. WiinterU (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m asking @Chaotic Enby:. Not you. Emiya1980 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The best bet for this would be to make an edit request on the talk page Template talk:Infobox company. In the meantime, having them in the key_people parameter don't water down their significance, but allows them to be visible to programs adding them to databases. If you want to, you could make the list of "key people" more selective, which could work too. Good luck! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)