Talk:IBM/Archive 1

message: historical influence on business and computing -- punched cards and US census -- Selectric typewriter -- IBM-PC 5150 1981 'revolution' --
IBM mainframes -- IBM minicomputers -- OS/2 -- "THINK" -- mainframe -- Fred Brooks classic The Mythical Man-Month about OS/360 -- Winchester disk technology -- legal precedents(?): unbundling -- office automation -- research contributions -- Atomic force microscope -- Scanning electron microscope --  -- Binnig & Rohrer  -- The role of IBM in automating the holocaust -- Deep Blue
-- IBM deal with Microsoft -- does Microsoft now occupy the position IBM did in the 1970s? --
: Furthermore sale of IBM's PC related activities incl. the right of using the IBM andTHINK trademarks for a limited time to some Chinese pc maker, in connection with a technical cooperation agreement. --Ernie 22:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing ideas (outline)

message: I read somewhere that during the war, the Nazi authorities allowed Dehomag to send IBM's share of the profits to a Swiss deposit.
I don't remember if that's the standard thing under international war law for goods of belligerant foreigners.
If not, it should be mentioned.
--Error 00:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dehomag profits

message: Is there any real reason why littleBlue and the ACM Programming contenst are mentioned in the See also section? looks like noise to me.
I've removed them from the page.
I'm keeping the links here in case someone thinks differently:
*littleBLUE
*ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest
Mikiher 11:33, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The ACM ICPC is sponsored by IBM. TheCoffee 05:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: littleBlue, ACM

message: :IBM's Software Group, if it were a separate entity, would be the second largest software company in the world, behind only Microsoft in total revenue.
It depends what you include in "software". The part of IBM that produces retail software (DB2, Lotus, Rational, etc) has indeed less revenues than Microsoft. But a larger part of IBM's revenues is made up by solutions and services (i.e. custom software solutions) Nowadays, software and related services make up more than half of IBM's revenues.
:Global Services ... $46.4 billion
:Hardware revenues ... $31.2 billio
:Software revenues ... $15.1 billion
:Global Financing revenues ... $2.6 billion
:Enterprise Investments/Other area ... $1.2 billion (from )
if you add the Software and Global Services you get more than Microsoft's revenues. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software and Microsoft 

message: I have the first logo of IBM, stripped from here, but where should it go? -- Xiong Chiamiov
:I added the logo you mention in the link to the history section of the article. do you know the year that the logo was created? i would like to add that to the caption if possible. uri budnik 01:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no requirement as the conditions in the first section state that non commericial and educational use is fine. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Logo 

message: IBM may be, as the opening para suggests, "the biggest", but the biggest what? Is it still at IT company? It seems focussed on consultancy. It doesn't make PC's. Its servers are backwardly-proprietary and have small market share.
: How the heck are you counting market share?  IBM has more server revenue than ANYONE .
: Let me remind you IBM still sells more than $30 billion worth of hardware. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On Demand appears to be used as a buzzword. I see it everywhere on the IBM intranet. "Buy on demand", "On demand workplace", "Blog on demand", "On demand community" etc ;-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still an IT company? 

message: The points about Black's language in "IBM and the Holocaust" being excessive are fine.  How about when adding information about the participation of IBM in the Holocaust, only information from primary documents is included eg Watson recieved a medal from Hitler, Watson was regularly in contact with, and directed Dehomag, etc. User:pjanini1
: This appears to be a notable enough topic to create an article and write about it in more detail. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM and the Holocaust

message: I read that, unlike other Japanese branches of foreign companies, IBM Japan was successful and well-accepted in the protective Japanese market because it was run as a Japanese company rather than a Japanese branch.
--Error 01:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM Japan

message: The link leads to the 2005 list which includes HP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.155.225 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 May 2006  (UTC)
:Fixed - David Björklund (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working Mother Magazine's Top 10 for 2004 link 

message: Not a lot of mention of the Paul Rand-designed logo in this article? — Wackymacs 14:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Rand 

message: I just came here because I was curious to know the story behind IBM's nickname Big Blue. There doesn't seem to be one here, so I'm requesting that someone in the know adds it to the article. Thanks. Druff 16:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I found some info and wrote a little piece about it. - David Björklund (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Big Blue" 

message: The history section begins with the heading "1888 – 1924: The founding of IBM" and the picture's caption reads "Tabulating Machine Corporation plant in 1893". However, below it says Tabulating Machine Corporation was founded in 1896. What's correct and what's not? Klehti 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I am looking for an infromation on an unusual topic: pop music hits from IBM!
In late 1960s or early 1970s, IBM released an LP full of parodies of pop songs with context related to computers. My weak senile memory keeps only two of them:
** Press the Magic Button (or Push the Magic Button?) based on Puff, the Magic Dragon
** Memory D'Amour, a pun on Melodie D'Amour by The Ames Brothers
The latter one goes something like,
:I've bought a terminal
:The day I lost my gal.
:... etc.
::Now I have girls galore
::I my new mem'ry core
::I put them on disk file
::To store them for a while... etc.
:Refrain:
:Memory d'amour,
:Put the core to the printer
:Or to the display
:Please without delay.
I'd very much like to find more info about this IBM music. Surprisingly, I cannot find its traces in the internet. I thought that April issues of Datamation could have kept them, but alas! mikka (t) 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a search on the IBM internal newsgroup on IBM history for "music", but found nothing on such a LP. I found references to company songs (lots of them; here's a link: "We don’t pretend we’re gay / We always feel that way" is the start of one song :-) or early electronic music or how to make music using a punch-card reader, but nothing on this. Anyway, I'll post a question on that newsgroup. bogdan | Talk 21:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got an answer that said that there were some song parodies inside IBM, but it would be rather surprising if the IBM lawyers allowed them to be released. :-) bogdan | Talk 21:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  I've seen and listened them myself, and guess where? In the USSR! (It was the time when IBM/360 machines were sold to USSR, and the owner of the vinyl I am speaking about  frequented IBM on this occasion (and he had a daughter, but this is another story... :-).) Of course, the songs were not released by some regular label. I guess it was a piece of promo, made very professionally, I must say. It is a pity that this piece of  computer folklore is lost. mikka (t) 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop music hits from IBM 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  
*Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
**allege
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
*As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.  You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, - David Björklund (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic generated suggestions 

message: The history section is far too bulky for the main IBM article.  I suggest it be spun off into a separate article, with just a short summary of IBM's history left in the main article.
As an example of this approach, have a look at Anglo-Saxons and the way that the history section links to History of Anglo-Saxon England.
Gavin Wilson 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - this article is too long. Kat, Queen of Typos 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure why not. (Wikimachine 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.—a thing 07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split away the History section

message: I think that the history behind DOS (disk operating system) and IBM/Microsoft is incredibly relevant to this article and to IBM's history. I feel it should be included.
*We already have articles on DOS, PC-DOS, and MS-DOS. Uncle G 13:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MIcrosoft didnt need them anymore cuz they were sucessfull, hopefully more people use linux now, on this article and their site they say they support Linux, thats good payback for Micro$oft!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realg187 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM, DOS, and Microsoft 

message: I think this article could use some more information regarding IBM's role during the Holocaust. Would this be relevant for a criticism/affairs section? 82.92.64.247 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust 

message: This page needs "criticism/affairs section," reguarding IBM's tecnology manufacturing and willful collaboration with the Nazi regime directly corresponding to the systematic deaths  of  victims of the WW2 Holocaust. A usefull starting point would be Edwin Black's Book "IBM and the Holocaust" <http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com>. Count of Cascadia 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has been discussed before, at length. I believe there was consensus regarding including information about roles by IBM, the US government, Spain, etc. CMacMillan 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But it must be mentioned on the main article I feel. I have added a mention of the holocaust to the history section, this time with a link to the main article. Please remove it if you feel it inappropriate. 217.42.222.146 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, thank you for both being bold and making the change as well as discussing it here.  After some consideration I have removed the sentence.  No other historical accomplishments or controversies are mentioned in the main article, and doing so in this case violates the undue weight clause.  /Blaxthos 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's reasonably well documented, then it should be included. If there's already a good source of information on it, the discussion here should be kept brief, with links to where more information resides. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is certainly factual that some people -- including Edwin Black -- believe that IBM supported the holocaust in some measure. Black claims that IBM have never denied his claims, though in fact they have repudiated them. I believe that the best thing to do here is to try to be as neutral as possible about the controversy, and to point interested readers to other articles. NOTE: I work for IBM. I am not an agent for them in this matter, but one could certainly doubt my neutrality on the subject. --ubiquity (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Ubiquity, Thanks for that comment, but just something that I have been looking up. There is no verifiable evidance that I could find after looking around on the web for a while. Blacks claims seem to qualify as original research, and as per wikipedia guidlines, original research is forbidden. And on the side not, dont worry about working for IBM, one of my parents works there. Thanks for trying, as we all should, to be neutral =D Javascap (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally, agree; it should have a crit section with info on the holocaust including info and refs from sites like these Japan Today art., book review site, IBM and the holocaust and info on the "Hollerith Machine" that was primarily used. Terrasidius (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those sources fail WP:RS, and originate from Black's book (of which there is much skepticism, see concerns above and below).  None of that really helps with WP:V problems, not to mention the obvious WP:NPOV concerns.  Finally, wikipedia is not a vehicle for criticism, and as such a "crit section with info on the holocaust" runs far afoul of our stated purposes.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM and the Holocaust 

message: How can it be around for that long?? They didnt have computers!! unless it was a Babbage Box Realg187 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does History of IBM answer your question?  — Aluvus t/c 19:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, "yes".  /Blaxthos 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WOw, she's as fast as a bullet! RealG187 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The company infobox gives its founding date as 1889, but the history section gives 1896. Which is correct? Reb42 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1888 

message: Please note the conflict with the Wikipedia reference for HP/Hewlett Packard:
IBM: "IBM is the largest information technology company in the world"
HP: "HP, is the world's largest information technology corporation"
I think a little qualification is in order.
:Though I don't have a source at the ready (will do some research), IBM dwarfs HP in terms of technology research & development, market capitalization, and corporate locations worldwide.  /Blaxthos 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To whoever asked for a citation for this, here's 2 sources (I don't know how to properly cite 2 sources for comparison: HP: http://h30261.www3.hp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71087&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1079613   IBM: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22728690/       $104B HP v $98B IBM  Drhamad (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest?

message: These 'savings' are used each year to distort the company's balance sheet and pay ever inflated salaries to President Palmisano and his cronies. There is very little actual growth in revenues. Stock price has remained largely stagnant for several years - unlike Palmisano's pay package.
Staff who have been with the company for 20 years or more face severe cuts in their pension payments and huge hikes in their health care costs and general abondonment by the company they have given a large part of their lives to.
The general view within the organization is that the company has changed beyond recognition in the last 10 years - not for the better.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.210.143.74 (talk) 
::Definitely original research and doesn't really feel neutrally worded.  /Blaxthos 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However its worded its sadly true.  When you look at their financial reports you see their costs going down slightly during some years and greater during others.  While I would happily admit it was due to improvement in the business process removing massive amounts of ineficencies.  However if you examine those years and compare the years they have a lay off you'll notice the trend that, for example, in 1998 they laid off X thousands of workers, in 1999 they reduced costs Y hundreds of thousands of dollars.  A 1 year lag for severence pay, buy outs, other fees and costs associated with removing employees is easily found.  Each year they cut more, sell the same, and then make more of a profit.  Secondly,  IBM has stated that employee benefits can not be garunteed, I take this from their law suit to use the IBMers' pension fund to an end that will benefit the company first and the employee second,  however Mr. Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. was given and garunteed a $1 Million a year pension.  IBM has also anounced a reduction of a significant portion of their work force, by some reports 1/3 of their total work force will be gone.  The more menial positions will be filled by low paying temps, like in IBM East Fishkill and IBM Poughkeepsie, from Manpower or another temporary agency.  Incase your wondering the IBM is approximatly 4 times greater in cost than a Manpower employee.  The IBMer gets; hourly wages/salary, pension, 401k, paid time off, paid sick days, reduced medical insurence cost, and yearly raises if their preformance is good enough.  The Manpower employee gets wages, no paid time off, no sick days, and pays for all of their medical coverage, and no yearly raises.  Manpower employees at certain IBM sites have the opportunity to recieve a raise after 90 days so long as they have no days missed and recieve an excelent review.  Note this is also only if their manager remembers to do the review and has the time to do said review.  As one last note, has anyone checked out IBM's new initiative called  LEAN?  According to some Global Services employees they were 'strongly discouraged' from talking about or mentioning this initiative to their customers.  Colour me confused but wouldn't a company that is trying to improve its quality of a product want their customers to know that the products are going to improve?  69.119.121.133 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Old merge proposal on the IBM Software Group article page that doesn't appear to have been tagged or discussed here. No opinion. Pairadox 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IBM SG is so tiny, might as well be bold and merge it and redirect.  If anyone feels strongly about it, move it back.  Dreadstar † 05:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of the move, but if anyone feels it should be moved or restored, feel free.  Dreadstar † 06:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[IBM Software Group]] 

message: Could someone elaborate just a but on what a "Sincere Tie" is. Maybe one or two words in a parenthetical?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.127.229 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sincere Tie 

message: I think the history section should be longer. Also the article should mention that IBM sold its HDD division to Hitachi.
The "Jam" and "Project Management Center of Excellence" are too long. These seem largely to deal with internal affairs and I think not very concrete, notable or interesting (salient).
Why do the  mainframes of IBM get so little attention in this article?
What hardware does IBM still develop apart from processors for video game consoles and what does it still manufacture and what hardware does it still sell? I guess IBM manufactures at the moment very little hardware.  Andries (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardware (was: Unbalanced short and long sections)

message: Major money making products or notable products that are not end of marketing should be listed, I think. The article makes it now not very clear how IBM makes its money. See list of IBM products. Andries (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major current products should be listed

message: I'm wondering why the 32 years of antitrust lawsuit against IBM (1950-1982) is only mentioned in very passing in the article, and also not mentioned as missing in the TODO-list or on the talk page. Together with AT&T's and MS', these are the three big antitrust actions against technology companies, AFAIK, and certainly influenced the public image of IBM for a very long time. http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/1980.htm has a nice introduction at the start. jschrod (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me, but I don't have enough background on it to get it started myself.  Anyone? Rhsatrhs (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in History_of_IBM#1969.E2.80.931979:_The_System.2F370_era and a short mentioning in this article is, I think, okay. Andries (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 32 years of antitrust lawsuit

message: This is potentially really really big news, there is lots of it all over the net but as a starter here is one reference: IBM Hit With Temporary Contract Ban Mathmo Talk 08:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ban has already been lifted. --ubiquity (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM Hit With Temporary Contract Ban 

message: I don't know how important typewriters were for IBM, but for typewriters the Selectric was a major player.  It should be mentioned. Kdammers (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selectrics 

message: Talk it up IBM, this whole article was obviously written by someone that works for IBM.  An example includes the fact that the Wikipedia article contains the fact that IBM has anti-discrimitory views to homosexuality... So?  Pealse make this article less like an advertisment and more like a Encyclopedia page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.71.85 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One big advertisment for IBM 

message: I may be missing something, but what's going on with the IBM logo page? If you click on it, it links to a page that appears to have been deleted. It has no history, and it warns me not to start a talk page for something that doesn't have an associated article. Something doesn't look right. It also looks like the license stated for the logo is incorrect. The IBM logo is not a type-faced logo, there is significant art in the logo. I think the only way we can use it is if we use a low resolution version and claim it under the WP:LOGO guidelines. Thoughts? Chaldor (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the logo from the page. The logo that was linked is this: :Image:IBM logo.svg Chaldor (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: You can ignore my ramblings about the page not existing, I realize now it was linking to a page in the commons...but I don't think that's where this logo belongs. Given that it is a logo (and not just a general type-face) I think it should be considered non-free material and we should have a scaled down version of it placed in wikipedia, not the commons. Chaldor (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo? 

message: Why does this article has the Category Monopolies? The word monopoly is nowhere in the article. Kinamand (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: antitrust actions against IBM are mentioned. Andries (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Monopolies? why? 

message: Could someone source correctly these numbers ?
--Eurobas (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 exercise 

message: I have made a proposal for an IBM WikiProject.  All interested editors are encouraged to join!  :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject IBM 

message: The Bush administration is considering launching an extensive probe of whether the pending sale of International Business Machines Corp.'s personal computer business to a Chinese company might pose national security problems, according to members of a congressional oversight group. Such a probe could disrupt or delay a $1.75 billion deal that has been widely viewed as a dramatic sign of China's transformation into an economic power with ambitions to acquire businesses abroad and create global brands. Under the accord, announced last month, Lenovo Group Ltd., China's largest computer manufacturer, would buy IBM's PC business, which would make it the No. 3 maker in a market that the U.S. technology giant helped pioneer.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33869-2005Jan24.html BillyTFried (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of how Chinese computer maker [[Lenovo]] bought IBM's PC business in 2005? 

message: In addition to my cleanup comments on the history of the page, I also reordered it so that nondiscrimination material was all together -- the genetic nondiscrimination information was after all the labor/layoff minutia (which doesn't seem to belong in this section but in its own, but I'll let someone else clean that up). Also: a separate section on "Gay rights" just after this section on "Diversity in the Workforce" also doesn't make much sense, but that's a re-org of sections that's probably beyond my ken. DAB-NYC (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes to "Diversity in the Workforce 

message: Shouldn't there be a section about Deep Blue, a 1997 computer which was the first one in the world to beat the world champion of chess, and was made by IBM? (Garry Kasparov in 1997)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.106.35 (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Blue 

message: "IBM is the world's fourth largest technology company and the second most valuable by global brand[4]  (after Coca-Cola)"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrK4 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the compound sentence.  The meaning is:  "IBM is the world's fourth largest technology company."  Full stop.  "[IBM is also] the second most valuable global brand (Coca-Cola is the world's most valuable global brand)."  Hope this helps.  :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coca-Cola not an IT Company 

message: The "See also" list as it stands is too long to be useful to readers. I've removed the individual product pages from "See also" and left the internal link to List of IBM products. Crysb (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" list 

message: "Founded in 1911, IBM manufactures and sells computer hardware" - really very ineresting... computers in 1911 :-))))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallenty (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the current wording imply that in 1911 the company sold computers? If so, what would be a suitable fix? The way I read it, its conveys that IBM was founded in 1911 and that [today] it manufactures and sells computer hardware, etc. —Eustress talk 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrase

message: re: "and spinning off companies like SAP (1972)".  This statement is suspect. According to the history I've read, SAP was founded by former IBMers, but not as a spinoff (no corporate backing from IBM).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.123.251 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct - SAP is not a spin off of IBM. Also, there are a couple of minor historical discrepancies that I'll raise here: there is legitimate doubt that this is a picture of Watson Sr.; The Social Security Act became law in 1935, but the actual tabulating contract was not awarded to IBM until late 1936; and it might be more accurate to say IBM people and equipment supported NASA's Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and space shuttle programs. I'll wait a while to give folks some time to review this post and raise any concerns about these proposed changes. If not, then I'll come back and make them. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Above editors are correct; SAP was founded by ex-IBM employees but that does not make it a corporate spin-off. EnglandsDreaming (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying! —Eustress talk 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: SAP and other IBM History discrepancies

message: Why is the IBM-Holocaust connection not articulated, including the company response? 
For many Wikipedia readers this is very relevant. The "country specific" exclusion makes no sense to me whatsoever. 
Truly, this needs at least a few sentences    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.56.76 (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject is discussed briefly at History_of_IBM#IBM_during_World_War_II. Country-specific material added to this article may be reverted, for the reason noted here.  Best, CliffC (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I don't understand why "country-specific  material" may (or must) be reverted, as it is not the case for such articles as ITT or ford, who also did very "dark" actions during WW2. The dehomag article exists, the company existed, it was a part of IBM, and it is a part of it's history... The fact that it is not a part IBM should be proud of doesn't have to be taken in consideration in a wikipedia article. Unless you plan not to make a neutral article, but an ad.88.185.59.39 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I would say that it is not "country specific" that is the main issue, but where and how it was added. This is supposed to be a summary section of the History of IBM article. So should just cover the major sections of that article (although see other discussions). If there are reliable independent sources then by all means it should be on Wikipedia somewhere, with those sources cited. W Nowicki (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, you supress allusion of the role of IBM in WW2 because it is not "country specific", once proved you were wrong, you still supress it because it's not the right time and place, and now, you suggest that it is not from reliable sources.1st question: Who are you working for ? dehomag existed, it was the more profitable subsidiary of IBM in the end of the 30's (follow the link), and it helped kill jews at a large scale. This subsidiary, who created the "hollerith" machine, created not only a system that permits to census the jews and gipsies in all invaded Europe, but to exterminates them with the most mechanical and systematic attitude. The number tatooed on every jews arm was directly an "output" of IBM'Hollerith machine. This, is History. And the minimum is to have a link about it on an article that pretends to present IBM'history. The best is that you do this yourself, so you can't supress it for any question of time and place or any presentation problem. 88.185.59.39 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: No. Although Wikipdia policy is to avoid personal attacks, for the record I am unemployed. I never worked for IBM, but at times for for competitors. This article is not about history of IBM, but the whole current corporation. Anyone who bothers to read the discussion would see that one editor offered their opinion, and I offered another. I did not "suppress" anything, but suggested in good faith that reliable sources be used to support as much information as we can in the best way for readers. W Nowicki (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a bit hard to understand, so, the chapter called "history" in the wikipedia article called "IBM" doesn't talk about IBM'S history ? It appears more and more that the problem is neither about sources (if you doubt about it, read the wikipedia article about dehomag, or search about it on history books) nor about presentation, nor the clarity we owe to the reader, but about not telling bad things (especially if they are true) about some companies. A company or a state honors itself when it says what it did wrong. The dark side of IBM and other companies exists, and is part of it's history. It is a minimum, for someone intellectually honest, to put a link in this article to an other existing article that talks about that truth. I tried unsuccessfuly, but I'm sure you are less clumsy than me, so I let you do that the right way. ;-) 88.185.59.39 (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM and Germany, 1930s-40s 

message: I am amazed to see a gap in the historical record of IBM, spanning between 1978 and 1991.  This is a critical period in IBMs history, when the chickens released by IBM's "partnering" with Microsoft came home to roost!  
Relative to the S&P 500 IBM's share value crashed, from being approximatey +250% of S&P 500 index in 1985 to a low somewhere close to 20% of the value of the S&P 500 index in 1993.   From my memory there was talk of IBM collapsing after drinking deeply of that poisoned chalice. 
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?PT=11&showchartbt=Redraw+chart&compsyms=&CB=1&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&C5=1&C5D=1&C6=&C7=1&C7D=1&C8=&C9=-1&CF=0&D7=&D6=&symbol=ibm&nocookie=1&SZ=0
LookingGlass (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... although, we'll probably have to use more encyclopedic terminology than roosting chickens and poisoned chalices  —Eustress talk 20:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe the larger question is how much history content to include in this main entry, given that there is an extensive History of IBM entry already? Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This omission doesn't look particularly accidental. It's beyond belief that this hasn't appeared in the history section at some point. And yet it isn't here, not even the vaguest mention. This page gets edited so often that trawling the history to see when (or more likely, I suspect, how many times) this has been removed from the article is difficult. Interestingly a tag suggesting expansion of the history section concerned was recently removed without any expansion being done in spite of this glaring omission. Odd. danno 20:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring omission?? 

message: I propose merging Extreme Blue into this article. The main article already conveys much of what the spin off article does, and I feel the spin off offers little if any value. —Eustress talk 17:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Merge completed. —Eustress talk 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation → IBM (or History of IBM): Why 2 articles on the same company? The articles have already basically said that CTR was simply renamed to IBM. Thus, they are the exact same corporate entity, the only difference being in the corporate name. That is not enbough to make them two different companies; CTR was simply renamed to IBM. So thus I suggest that we merge the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation in to either this article (IBM) or the History of IBM article. Those seem like two good relevant articles to choose from as a merge target. I would not be surprised if the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation article has information that duplicates that found in either of my proposed merge targets either. Making this worse is that CTR's article has information, namely the infobox, that suggests that CTR is "defunct", when it is in reality alive and well today as IBM. This is not the only time where I have seen two Wikipedia articles on the same company for different names that company used over the years. Regards, [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Simpler: The IBM article History section has three subheadings: 1.1 1880-1929, 1.2 1930-1979, 1.3 1980-present.  Change those to 1.1 1880-1924, 1.2 1925-present.  The CTR article is the main article for 1880-1924, IBM History the main article for 1925-present. 69.106.237.145 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the broader philosophical issue that should be discussed is how much historical content should be in the main IBM entry at all, given the existence of the more detailed IBM history entry? Seems to me that there would be less potential for user confusion and editorial angst if there was just the 'IBM History' heading with a link to the IBM history entry. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, seems like a good possibility would be to merge the CTR article into History of IBM, and replace the contents of the History sections in this main IBM article with a simple  tag redirecting to the History of IBM article, possibly retaining a brief summary if that would be proper. In either case, relevant information not in the History of IBM or CTR articles could be merged to History of IBM if needed. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation]] into either this article or [[History of IBM]] 

message: I agree that this page should be merged with IBM, at which point the name of this predecessor entity could be corrected. IBM's own archives refer to its origin as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (note hyphens and Company, not Corporation).--Mfwills (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge It 

message: I believe this article to be biased. The corporate affairs section sounds like an advertisement by only talking about how great it is to work for IBM. There are a number of criticisms for the company, such as old fashioned practices, and there is no mention of anything negative anywhere in the article. 
--23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute

message: I've reverted Eustress's archiving. The discussion is still of interest. Wikipedia threads frequently lie dormant for several years before being taken up again, as they have ongoing relevance to the topic. This is the first time I've seen a Talk page archived because of inactivity of the threads. The usual reason is that there is an unwieldy amount of material that needs to be brought back to a manageable level. Koro Neil (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving was done in accordance with talk page guidelines, which state, "When... a particular subject is not discussed any more, do not delete the content—archive it." If you feel a thread was archived prematurely, feel free to bring it back out of the archive or to simply reference the text in the archives. —Eustress talk 02:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived by Eustress 

message: An essential aspect of IBMs history is missing: the various law suits about alleged monopolistic practices IBM was involved in (was the article "cleaned" by IBMers who don't like to be reminded of that time?) I don't know enough of IBM history to update the article, but I do know that IBM was convicted as early as the 1950s to a consent decree that was only lifted some 10 years ago. In the 1970s IBM was again accused for monopolistic practices, and from 1974 prepared for a split-up, with a structure of divisions that might split off as independent companies. In the early 1980s, president Reagan allegedly told the "independent" prosecutor that a strong USA needs strong firms, so that he'd better focus his attention to other projects. Then the divisions merged again into a "customer set organisation".
Unlike some other companies accused of monopolistic practices, IBM was always keen on avoiding conflicts in this field, and employees who were found to violate the internal "business conduct guidelines" were dismissed immediately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbakels (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I too find it mind-boggling that none of the lawsuits, the *issues*, raised by IBM's past behavior are included in this article.  The moves to crush any competitor who tried to either provide non-IBM parts or non-IBM service were stopped only after *much* agony.  The omission here of any such mention is amazing, because this action and counter-action is what established for the whole industry that replacement parts and service were allowable and retribution against customers was illegal.  If this were an individual I'm sure that industry-wide precedents established through their actions would be noted.  Why not here? 24.28.17.231 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does seem to be overwhelmingly positive. Do we need two lists of major inventions and two lists of company rankings? History of IBM seems a bit more balanced. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law suits 

message: See 
:Quote in context: I think they're the new normal. And you know, we've got 430,000 people; 50 percent or so have been with us less than five years. So you see another — and in some cases it's generational; you see a millennial generation out there, and how they work and what they do differently, and every one of us are going to — the next workforce, it — well, you know, you see it if — around you, right? I don't tell you something you don't know. And so these phenomena absolutely change how people think, how they work, how they want to work, how they're going to interact.
72.244.200.127 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a good addition for the Working at IBM section, but not appropriate for the lead (see WP:LEAD). —Eustress talk 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a better home for that detail.  72.244.204.34 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added detail from Rometty at Council on Foreign Relations 

message: IBM was founded in the US, but less than 1/5 of IBMs workforce is currently based in the US. Perhaps there is a more accurate way to reference IBM's American past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Tog (talk • contribs) 3 July 2013
:The above unsigned comment was apparently added on 3 July 2013‎ by Mister Tog, describing an edit to the main article on the same date by the same user.  Comments:  1.  Please observe the guidelines noted above, "Please sign and date your posts" and "Put new text under old text."  2.  I'm not sure that the above rationale is sufficient to support the notion that IBM is not an American multinational and that it's status as an American company is merely a thing of the past.  I would contend that the original wording is (a) still factual, (b) consistent with WP:LEAD, and (c) consistent with the current wording of the lead sentences in the articles for other large American multinationals (such as ExxonMobil, P&G, 3M, and Boeing).  My suggestion is to revert the edit to restore the original wording, but I will wait for other opinions before making any change.  -- HLachman (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaning more on the side of exclusion of the word "American". What makes a company "American"? If it's location of HQ, then IBM would be American. If it's majority headcount, then it's not. —Eustress talk 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't entirely cut and dried in the corporate world nowadays. But I think it's clear that a company that is founded, incorporated and remains headquartered in a country is indeed of that nationality. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Reverted.  The only justification given for the edit is that if a company has majority headcount outside a certain country, it can no longer be identified as being "of" that country.  This premise would imply, for example, that if I started and ran my company in, say, France, with 499 French employees in France (including all executives, finance, product development, manufacturing, etc.), plus 300 telephone support personnel in India and Philippines, plus 10 salespersons per country in 20 other countries, then it could no longer be called a French company.  If that's what the premise implies, it seems unlikely that it could be considered an acceptable standard among relevant experts and professionals (such as in corporate law or relevant public policy circles), but if it is, please share.  Until then, we have two in favor of reverting, one "leaning" against, and the original editor who has not come back to comment on the revert.  So I reverted it. -- HLachman (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference to an "American multinational" company 

message: Annual revenue for 2012 is available and should be updated in the sidebar. Not sure why all the other numbers up-to-date except that one. SimonSage84 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 revenue 

message: By the late '60's and early'70's IBM Selectric typewriters in both ball and later daisy wheel configurations had become a standard in most businesses, schools, law enforcement, government, etc. offices. The word ubiquitous comes to mind.  Shouldn't there be at least a short section on these typewriters?2602:306:BDC0:CF90:75D1:7D75:2484:7FD0 (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on typewriters needed?

message: The article says: "In the late 1970s" "In the late 1970s, IBM underwent some internal convulsions between those in management wanting to concentrate on their bread-and-butter mainframe business, and those wanting the company to invest heavily in the emerging personal computer industry."
Wikipedia sources list:
The IBM Personal Computer Disk Operating System was was sold as a DOS system for the IBM Personal Computer and compatibles, sold by IBM from the 1980s to the 2000s.
IBM model number 5150 was introduced on August 12, 1981.
IBM PC DOS 1.0 released with the IBM PC on August 1981.
The IBM Machine Type number 5160 was released on March 8, 1983
The Personal System/2 or PS/2 was IBM's third generation of personal computers released in 1987.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_DOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_DOS#History
IBMs participation in the creation of the term "IBM PC compatible" is clearly documented in Wikipedia. Links can help the readers.
Billgdiaz (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  expand from "In the late 1970s..." to include the 1980s as well (see supporting Wikipedia sources) 

message: The section "Research and inventions" says that IMB supports open source. But in the 1970s and 1980s, their software was distributed without the source code, thus forcing clients to hire them for services. Can you add this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.67.176 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open source 

message: I have here an article of an german weekly computer newspaper from Mai 1989, wich is sarcastic that IBM have registered "Big Blue" as trademark. It is sacastic, because the autor think, that not IBM has invented the pet name, and that they stolen it. And he refers also to the film in the yeat before: The Big Blue. It is now registered?
* Geklauter Kosename ("stolen pet name"), Computerwoche (Germany), 1989-05-26
--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 00:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging, and logo.[6] - and it is sourced. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Blue 

message: Although the desk decoration is usually only the single word, it is actually a contraction of the motto: "People should think, machines should work".
101.161.137.23 (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See Think (IBM) for source of motto. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "THINK"- a fuller version. 

message: Based on the edit summary by 50.136.247.190, there seems to be some disagreement on the founding location of IBM - whether it's Endicott, or New York City, or both.  The original source provided by 50.136.247.190 from the IBM archives says that the company was based in New York City.  I have seen another source that says headquarters were moved there some time in 1911, though it's not clear if this was before or after founding.  Contemporary sources list founding in New York State (but not a specific city), while the Poor's 1922 business listing states that corporate offices were in Endicott and general offices were in New York City.  The book by Maney lists both Endicott and New York City.  Are there other sources that document this?
Given the ambiguity across multiple sources, perhaps it's best to (1) list both Endicott and New York City, or (2) simply write New York State?  Alternatively, perhaps the infobox should say New York State, and the history section should document the two sets of offices?
Thanks!
Item 15 in the references is an invalid link? It sends me to a search engine. dafuq  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.224.241 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually just found a series of records from the U.S. Congress, which contains records of statements from IBM on its incorporation as CTR in June 1911.  There are several legal declarations from the company itself, which state that incorporation papers were filed in the State of New York, and in Broome County (where Endicott is located), in June 1911.  While other declarations were filed with the County of New York (i.e., Manhattan), incorporation was never filed there.  Based on this, it seems as though the company was indeed founded in Endicott (or at least Broome County).  Vmanjr (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The earlier text re location gave the 1922 Poor's as reference.  That's not reliable, things can change over 11 years.  IBM archives are, well, somewhat casual.  I found the same documents as those above.  The CTR "Certificate of Incorporation ..." has the following text: "Fifth. The location of the principal business office is to be in the Town of Endicott, County of Broome, and State of New York."  So Endicott it is.  50.136.247.190 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Founding 

message: While IBM was a counter-party to the first swap agreement, this does not constitute invention of the financial product. In fact it was Salomon Brothers who came up with the idea for the deal. Will now remove the financial swap from the list of IBM inventions. The fact that the first swap agreement was between IBM and the World Bank is already reported on the Swap (finance) page in any case. Andrastea (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invention of financial swap 

message: I'm thinking about organizing this article more like the Apple ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc. ) or Microsoft one: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft ) with a more detailed history section, a dedicated section for Businesses, and putting Financial, Logo, Nickname, and potentially some others under a Corporate affairs section.
Any thoughts on that before I get started? Strawgate (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use the History of IBM article for IBM history?  Keep in the IBM article only that history necessary for understanding/explaining/... the current IBM.  Thus things like Unit record equipment and typewriters would probably not be mentioned (or one-liners at most) in IBM while the IBM 360 history would likely be there.  The two articles would overlap to a small(?) extent. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a section under "Products and Services" for Security Software. Security is one of the 5 pillars of modern IBM (Cloud, Analytics, Mobile, Security, and Social), and bounces between No 2 and No 3 security software vendor in the world by revenue - this is very substantial, in fact it's more substantial from some of the other BUs listed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.97.68 (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Reorganization 

message: Does anyone know enough about either of these to make an article explaining them? Came across the terminology but I'm a bit confused about it.
The OEF initialism is mentioned here:
:To export a request from an Optim Directory to an OEF:
#From the Data Project Explorer, expand the Optim Directory folder in a project.
#Right-click a definition and click Create Optim Export File. The Optim Export File Name window opens.
#Enter an OEF name and click OK.
I don't know if anywhere explains what Optim is though. Is this a notable IBM creation? Ranze (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[IBM Optim]] and [[Optim Export File]]s

message: Hello, this user believes that a picture of a product (in this case IBM Watson) is a good illustration for a whole company (in this case IBM). This is the only article I can think of with the picture of a product in the image field of the infobox for a company. It is the (de facto) consensus in the WikiProject Companies to use a picture of the headquarters of the company in this field. I think that putting a picture of IBM Watson in this field is misleading. IBM is not reducible to this single product. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. IBM's HQ is much different in importance than other companies -- it only accommodates 0.1% of IBM's workforce, and leadership is distributed worldwide across more than 170 countries, whereas other companies are more HQ-centric. IBM Watson, on the other hand, is much more visible and spans all IBM business units; plus, there's already an IBM HQ image in the Headquarters and offices section pursuant to MOS:PERTINENCE. Additionally, in terms of precedent, there are articles for other large employers (e.g., Target) with non-HQ secondary images. Since the image field of the infobox is an optional field that template documentation states is for "a secondary image of the company (not the logo)", the image appears to be within the parameters and more well suited in helping readers understand the subject of the article. 190.223.56.137 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Indeed, the article for Target uses a picture of a store in the image field of the infobox, but this is not misleading because this is an example of a typical store and Target is little more than his stores. On the other hand, IBM is far more than only IBM Watson. It is giving too much importance to this single product to put it in this field. I therefore request the removal of this misleading image of this field. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing misleading about it, for reasons previously stated. Request respectfully denied :) 190.223.56.137 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. We are in a disagreement. I explained why this is misleading. IBM is not reducible to the IBM Watson in any way. The consensus on the project is to use headquarters image in this field (with the exception of retail chains like you pointed out). This specific company is not a retail chain and I don't see any reason to break the consensus for this article. In fact, I see a reason why not to; this is misleading for the reader. I will now ask other contributors their opinions about this matter, but please remember that the consensus should not be broken by a single person and that the current state of the article is not a reflect of the consensus. --RaphaelQS (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your only reasoning thus far has been that IBM is not reducible to a single product, to which my reply is that IBM is also not reducible to a single office building -- especially one that only accommodates 0.1% of its employees; hence the more broad Watson would seem more suitable, especially since already have an HQ pic in the HQ section in the body of the article and since there is precedent where other articles do not use an HQ pic in the field. Others are welcome to chime in here, and if you want to actively solicit other viewpoints, beware of canvassing and consider WP:RfC instead... but I think you're trying to enforce a rule where there is none. You keep referencing some WikiProject consensus but have yet to provide any such evidence, and my own search produced nothing. One size does not always fit all, and one of enwp's pillars is that "Wikipedia has no firm rules" (WP:5P5). 190.223.56.137 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I can only guess why the consensus on the project evolves to be like it is today; in most companies of significant size the headquarters only accommodates a very little number of its employees, but this is irrelevant because the headquarters is the head of the company and don't need to accommodate most of its employees to the most important building of the company. Please remember that the consensus doesn't have to be written somewhere, if most articles in the project and most of the contributors in the project follow it, then it is enforced, expect if someone has a good reason not to on a specific article. You don't give such a reason. I explained -a few times now- why breaking the consensus for this article is misleading for the reader. I don't think you have anything new to say, so I will now open the discussion to other contributors. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image on the infobox 

message: I had thought that the company was now IBM, not anymore an acronym for International Business Machines, but I don't have any references.  This article seems to suggest that isn't true.  Looking at http://www.ibm.com I don't see any mention of another name. Gah4 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "About IBM" page does indicate the full name under 'Contact Us.' The full name is also expressed in its financial disclosures. 162.197.25.57 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Business Machines? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on IBM. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2016/01/21/ibm-acquires-ustream-behind-the-acquisition/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://partners.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/091797ibm.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091218093727/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-erick.html to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-erick.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Maybe include a section on the Control Data lawsuit. Thomas Watson (Jr) mentions this in detail in his autobiography (Father, Son & Co. ).
Pete318 (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control Data Lawsuit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IBM. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915040843/http://www.naso.org/board.htm to http://www.naso.org/board.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121220184517/http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html to http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi there! There's a small addition I'd like to request for this article's "See also" section: New-collar worker. This newly-created article is directly related to IBM, which coined the term. I think inclusion in the "See also" section might be more appropriate than somehow integrating the phrase into the article's prose (though I'm not opposed, if editors feel differently). As a quick note of disclosure, I have a financial COI as I am here on behalf of IBM via Vianovo, as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I prefer not to edit articles directly and am looking for editors to review my suggestion. Please let me know if you have any questions.  Pinging to keep you in the loop, or in case you're interested in helping out again. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI)  15:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to ''See also'' 

message: I came to wikipedia today looking for information about the origin of the nickname "Colossus of Armonk" for IBM. When I searched for the phrase I got a redirect to this article, but when I searched the article I got no information about the name.
I'm sure it's just a reference to IBM being big and having it's HQ in Armonk so it probably doesn't require more info, but should the redirect point here if the article doesn't even reference the name? 
The more common "Big Blue" also redirects here, but it is mentioned in the lede.
The oldest reference I can find with a 'quick google search' seems to be this one https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/09/business/dominance-ended-ibm-fights-back.html from 1982 but the title of the 1981 book by Robert Sobel "IBM: Colossus in Transition" (ISBN 0-8129-1000-1) suggests that the name might be older than that.
Anyone know or have any interest in adding it? Possibly it belongs in the History of IBM article rather than here, although back to my original point I think if it goes anywhere then the redirect should also point there and if it doesn't go into any article then the redirect should probably go too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:440:8790:E90B:85E3:43F4:84C2 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colossus of Armonk 

message: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/28/ibm-is-reportedly-nearing-deal-to-acquire-red-hat.html
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-red-hat-m-a-ibm/ibm-nears-deal-to-acquire-cyber-security-company-red-hat-sources-idUKKCN1N20N5
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-acquire-red-hat-completely-changing-cloud-landscape-and-becoming-world%E2%80%99s-1-hybrid-cloud-provider
The Value of the Red Hat IBM deal is at $34 Billion as of October 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:c600:8270:a563:d5b6:732c:339a (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM Red Hat Merger October 2018

message: Kindly check this paragraph, administrators:
"Later he introduced Uber in 1890 to book his travels accordingly from Guindy to DLF IT Park. There were days when he didn’t get Uber, so he used to book Ola and Meru also. When he got nothing he switched to QuickRide.[9] "
Thank you! Polytope4D (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense / Vandalism to be removed 

message: Any particular reason zero mention of their initial anti-competitive behavior with Microsoft is listed here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.181.217 (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-competitive behavior 

message: There is nothing in the article about IBMs activities in communication products, perhaps they ended in the sale of the related division(s) to CISCO (euphemistically named "strategic cooperation").
If Wikipedia's ambition is a "neutral point of view", failures must be mentioned too.
I don't have the ambition to write a related Wikipedia text myself, but I'd like to stress that once the "communication products division", headquartered in Research Triangle Park (NC) was huge, with its expensive 37x5 communication controllers and its equally expensive VTAM and NCP software products.
Rbakels (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communication Products 

message: Preface - I wrote this update to the "People and culture" section, subsection "Employees." I recommend adding a new paragraph before the last one. The new paragraph would take the one sentence in the current, penultimate paragraph that references labor relations and add more to it. I have added my suggested edit below:
In terms of labor relations, the company has traditionally resisted labor union organizing, although unions represent some IBM workers outside the United States.https://web.archive.org/web/20160817122539/http://www.newunionism.net/library/organizing/Logan%20-%20The%20Union%20Avoidance%20Industry%20in%20the%20United%20States%20-%202006.pdfhttps://web.archive.org/web/20131014040215/http://www.endicottalliance.org/iwiswebsite/iwis-ibmgua-links.htm One of the main criticisms of IBM is its continued, large-scale layoffs since the 1990s. After its peak employment numbers in the 1980s, IBM cut its US workforce drastically, up to three-quarters of what it once was. From 2013 to 2018, IBM ousted over 20,000 employees who were 40 years old or older.https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2018/03/ibm-propublica-gray-hairs-old-heads/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talmtrees (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labor Relations