Jump to content

Talk:Hummer

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

H4 or HR

[edit]

Is there really a H4? has it been proven? From my research, I have found that Hummer is perhaps not going to call it "H4", but HR, Hummer Roadster. Source: www.hummerhr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.250.110 (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2006

Yes, there is really a H4.

See: http://www.google.de/imgres?q=hummer+h4&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1680&bih=985&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=mRZUDbHsP3RCgM:&imgrefurl=http://www.topspeed.com/cars/hummer-h4/ke2684.html&docid=AOCvCQA68ZZfRM&imgurl=http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200809/2012-hummer-h4---ren_460x0w.jpg&w=459&h=344&ei=v519T4LMD8X5sgam2NGkCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=176&vpy=182&dur=1957&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=141&ty=84&sig=107512968915443378161&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=171&start=0&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:120 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariomuse85 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I'm all for keeping the article non-POV, but now there's nothing written to even suggest that there's anti-Hummer sentiment to begin with. Keeping all mentions of criticism out of the mix isn't objective writing; it's ignoring the elephant in the living room. And whether or not criticism sites like FUH2 are "juvenile" is very much up to the reader, isn't it? This is a sick car

Buddy-Rey 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Buddy-Rey[reply]

If you tried just a little bit harder you might have made this article ironic. As it is it is grotesquely POV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.160.65.246 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2005

---

Agreed that this page is horribly POV and technically inaccurate.

I don't understand the whole rant about how "inefficient" the engine is. The engines in Hummers are just as efficient as those in smaller cars, it's just there is more weight to be driven. It's not like the fuel injection is haphazardly leaking gasoline on the highway and better engineering would cause a magical leap in fuel efficiency.

As it stands, http://trucks.about.com/cs/suvreviews/a/hummer_fuel04.htm shows that the 2004 Hummer H1 with a diesel V-8 averages about 16 MPG and the H2 with a gasoline engine is closer to 9.6 MPG.

--Jkonrath 20:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing here about the new H1 Alpha i would like some info on that, please.

--necrion 7:39, 12 Apr 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. Wikipedia's accuracy will be suspect if people don't post facts here rather than putting POV's in. Demonstrating that there is controversy is fine, but stuff in Wiki should be facts, or people won't use it.

Beastmaster March 29, 2005 03:10 (UTC)


On a side note. I see no proof that President George W. Bush (#43) owns a Hummer. I see a lot of rumor mills floating around on the net, but no pictures or anything of the sort. If there's no proof of this backing it up soon, someone needs to purge thatportion of the Wiki.

--Beastmaster March 29, 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Ok.. The page seems Acceptable after Sfoskett's last edit. It seems balanced now as far as bias goes. Thanks!

--J0llyR0ger 18:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fixed some minor spelling errors. Also changed the "coming soon" for the H3. It's starting to appear at dealers now.

--Beastmaster May 10, 2005 04:14 (UTC)

I reverted the z->s in advertizing - it's about as American as a vehicle can get, and should use US spelling in the article. --SFoskett 17:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that American spelling is entirely appropriate for the article, but advertising (with an 's') is not American spelling, nor British. The American Heritage Dictionary lists only the s-spelling. 

86.139.182.248 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I have edited the page a great deal. I feel that we have to mention the criticism, but I have tried to make it fair. Most Hummer-related criticism also applies to lots of other vehicles. But Hummer, being a one-trick pony, is the focus of such criticism. I have tried to say that in the article. Thoughts? --SFoskett 14:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

[edit]

We appear to be having an edit war here. I would like to address the edits:

  1. I feel that including a sentence on biodiesel is not called for. I know of no Hummers running on biodiesel, and it's not really Hummer-specific. ANY Diesel engine can run on the stuff. Therefore, it's irrelevant.
  2. We should include negative links as well as positive ones. FUH2 is actually quite informative, if POV. Flipoffahummer is less so.
  3. Why single out certain vehicles in certain places?

Please discuss these issues here before reverting the article again. --SFoskett 21:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Not to sound wierd, but how is FUH2 informative? In some places, doing that can get you arrested. --Beastmaster April 2, 2005 00:06 (UTC)

I meant that the points raised on the main page are interesting, not that the photos are... --SFoskett 14:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ok.. Hopefully the Edit WAr is over. THe article seems generally accurate, and is informational. --J0llyR0ger 18:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE:BioDiesel - Actually, many Hummers run on Biodiesel. I run B100 in my 97.5 H1. :) The US Military will use 6 million gallons of Biodiesel in 2005, some of which will go into HMMWV's. --Beastmaster 21:54, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Non-informational Criticism and Unfounded Claims

[edit]

Criticism about the Hummer lends no informational value whatsoever to this article. Saying that its a "fact" that most Hummer owners don't take their vehicles offroad and is "especially true of the H2" is unfounded and irresponsible writing. The links to juvenile sites like fuh2.com make this look more like a ranting op-ed than an encyclopedia article. As such this erodes Wikipedia's credibility. Anyone so obviously anti-Hummer does not need Wikipedia's help in finding such sites.

Hopefully I didn't just start another edit war. I thought the "evaluation" section read like somebody made some breathless complaints about the Hummer's impracticality, and then somebody else crudely inserted various counter-arguments to restore NPOV. I rewrote the section, removing the litany of other impractical cars and the notice that fewer Hummers are built (which suggested if their faults are somehow mitigated). I also more explicitely defined the "impractical" charge. At any rate, all this is basically a reprise of the points made in the SUV article. Tafinucane 22:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no problem with these edits. The things you removed were a toned-down version of a defense posted previously. I would not have included them either, but wanted to make sure all viewpoints were not suppressed. --SFoskett 22:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The notion that Hummers are seldom taken off-road is not unfounded -- it's basic physics. Most rugged off-road trails, also known as jeep roads, are only a few feet wide and it would be physically impossible to take a Hummer on one. When you're driving a narrow little jeep down one, and you meet another vehicle, you often have to back up in order to make room for passing. An H2 would not fit single-file, much less be capable of meeting other vehicles on such a road. It's clear to me that Hummers are used exclusively in urban areas. Ken 00:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous edit of criticisms (job interview, etc) was non-informational boosterism and an unfounded claim (only two or a few people were present, the connection with development of the H3, etc.). As for the critique of the HUMMER, links to parody websites clearly document a generalized dislike towards the vehicle that, for some, symbolizes conspicuous consumption and environmental destruction. Kristan 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exclamation Mark

[edit]

It should also be noted that other than military units, only around 10,000 total civilian Hummer H1s have been produced!

Don't see the point of the "!", so I changed it to a "."

please add pollution information

[edit]

anybody able to dig up (objective and factual) information on how much pollution hummers produce? please add a paragraph - thanks.

No more or less than similar oversized SUV's, such as the Suburban. This article has already been flayed by edit wars between detractors and apologists--and the information you seek creates a bias if it is applied only to the Hummer. I think a better idea would be to create a vehicle pollution article. And then make the Hummer article a redirect to vehicle pollution :) Tafinucane 20:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably true that what can be said of the Hummer can be said, to a lesser extent, of all large "light trucks". And, to a lesser extent, on smaller vehicles and even to a less extent with regard to scooters. However, the Hummers are uniquely criticized for this, because although their pollution capacity is similar to other large vehicles, it is still higher and unique in its production of particulate matter. Whether you agree with them or not, the Hummer H2 is singled out as being a particularly egregious polluter by credible environmentalists. Ken 00:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Trivia: Hummer is Lobster in Swedish :) (http://www.vattenkikaren.gu.se/fakta/arter/crustace/decapoda/homagamm/homaga.gif) ---


Modification of where they are made Adding clarification as to who really makes the Hummer line of vehicles and where.

H1 - made by AM General. Dedicated factory and plant for H1's in Indiana

H2 - made by AM General under contract with GM. Dedicated factory and plant in Indiana

H3 - made by General Motors in their Shreveport, LA plant. The same plant puts out the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon lines.

--Beastmaster 03:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restore your manhood

[edit]

Shouldnt there there a paragraph under critisms about that Restore your manhood ad that GM changed to Restore the Balance because of bloggers complaints. If you dont remember the ad ill summarise it for you a man standing in line to pay for his groceries (tofu) see another guy behind him with a alot of steak and charcoal (to cook the steak obviously) The guy sees an ad for a hummer on the back of a magazine he runs to his car goes to hummer dealership buys a hummer and while he is driving off large text appeared taking up at least half of the screen saying RESTORE YOUR MANHOOD anywho i dont know if this is nesscary

Disambiguation

[edit]

Apparently, 'hummer' is also a nickname for hummingbirds, as well as the oral sex term. Can we put up a disambiguation page? I'm sure there are more slang terms called 'hummer' as well. Identity0 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need one, or will the simple addition of "Hummingbird" do, like the current page is modded to now? --Beastmaster 02:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mpg or miles per gallon

[edit]

To clear up mpgs', added them Miles_per_gallon links in 'Evaluation', so that it would be clear what mpg means to non-Uessians. -Mardus 10:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-An even better idea, IMO, would be to edit the article to use international units instead (with US units in parenthesis). Though, the most common way of expressing fuel consumption (as far as I've seen) in Sweden (where I live) and probably a lot of other European countries is either as x liters per 100 km or x deciliters per 10 km, which is perhaps not very "SI-ish" after all... 85.224.199.167 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add also km/L? I can't figure out that template thing and I don't want to mess it all up. Pretty strange to find out that most other countries in europe use that weird 24L/100 km stuff...always thought the economy was the most "normal" one (km/L). KingCarrot (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

I understand Schwarzenegger was the first one to buy one because he saw the military version while filming "Kindergarten Cop" and had GM make one for him. Is this true?

Answer: Rumor mill has a wide variety of variants to the story.

Variant 1: Arnold asked AMG to build him a one off version with a GM Gas V-8 (Corvette Engine at that time).

Variant 2: Arnold lobbied AMG to build him a Humvee just like what the Military uses.

Reality (From AM General employees): Arnold did lobby to AMG to buy some Humvees. He lobbied pretty hard after CNN and other media outlets broadcast pictures of them during Desert Storm.

He actually was successful - to a point. Arnold received two Humvee's under a specialized "lease" basis, mainly because he is the owner of other military hardware, including an M47 tank stationed at the Motts Military Museum in Columbus, Ohio. He received one Slantback in 686 Tan CARC, and a hardtop variant in semi-gloss tan. Both were shipped to Arnold in 1991.

Then, Arnold got 1992 Limited Edition numbers 0001 and 0002. Ironically, Coca Cola really received the first 15 civilian Hummers off the factory floor. Arnold's trucks were later in the production run. One of his Limited Edition trucks was auctioned off in 2000 for $140k. Marc Andreeson of Netscape won the truck.

Ironically, because of California DMV laws, he cannot legally register his first two Humvee's. AM General (in a fit of wierdness) has sent letters asking DMV's across the US not to register and give plates to military M998 variants. Because of that, his Humvee's are registered out of state - I believe in Indiana or Ohio.

--Beastmaster 06:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the Evaluation section

[edit]

Quote: "As fuel prices have risen, detractors have also singled out the Hummer as an egregious waster of resources—a charge based largely on the Hummer's unnecessary fuel consumption and size."

Unnecessary fuel consumption and size? Isn't that a bit odd? Who determines that it's "unnecessary"? If I get no objections, I'm going to rewrite it to say:

"As fuel prices has risen, detractors have also singled out the Hummer as an egregrious waste of resources - a charge based mostly on what is perceived to be the Hummer's fuel consumption and size".

--Beastmaster 06:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer versus Lambo

[edit]

Someone changed the history to reflect that the original HMMWV was based on the Lamborghini "Lambo" prototype. It wasn't. The original HMMWV competition in 1979 had three competitors: AM General, with their design that eventually became the HMMWV; Chrysler Defense, with a vehicle based on the Saluki; and Teledyne, with a vehicle based on the Cheetah, which was based on the LM002 Lambo.

For a better rundown of all of this, see http://www.off-road.com/hummer/general/hmmwv.html

--Jkonrath 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikify tag

[edit]

I put a wikify tag here because the article needs a lead section. If there's a more appropriate tag, please feel free to replace it (or write a lead section). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"hearsay" from Kmarkey

[edit]

Peep http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~heg and call the Michigan office for verification. Doctor Octagon 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have found no reference to General Motors or Hummer in the resume you cited above, or even with searching Google. And I don't think "call the Michigan office" is a great way to cite information on here. Also, I'm not sure that the paragraph you wrote really belongs in the Criticism section of the article. - echidnae 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was placed in that section because of its environmental reference. Mr. Gilliland is an environmental activist, it makes sense that "make it smaller" was merely a criticism of the trend in large SUVs to consume gas and require large amounts of materials to construct. Doctor Octagon 03:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think the fact that Mr. Gilliland being an environmental activist is an important thing to note in the article, and not something you should leave out. As I said before, though, googling for Mr. Gilliland led to a dead end, so there is no way to know this without prior knowledge. I should also note that Hummer was very much a large part of the "trend in large SUVs to conume gas...", so saying that they are doing business now in an "environmentally friendly way" is a bit much to me, even if they're making things smaller in size. Their vehicles are still huge. Saying "a more environmentally friendly way" seems more fitting. - echidnae 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try searching for "Herb Gilliland" or "Herbert Elwood Gilliland III" Doctor Octagon 14:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those names give me results, so I think you should use those names in your above comment, instead of the one you wrote in the article. Unless someone knows him personally, no one would be able to find out his name is Herb or Herbert, and a google search would end up blank, like my previous searches. Your added link to [1] is definitely a better source than your previous ones, as it links the man to Hummer, but this link I am not sure why you added. It doesn't prove any of your points, and seems to be some personal blog of whomever...again, not a desired source for information. But anyway, I do agree withe a previous comment below that your addition to the article should be put in the Hummer H3 article. - echidnae 02:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know a polite way to say this, but "Herbert Elwood Gilliland III" returns 3 results, one is his web site (madmerv.com belongs to him), one is some information about his sock puppetry of Wikipedia at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Young_Zaphod, and one seems to be a friend writing about him. Doctor Octagon's edits of course match the pattern that are described. Why he would go out of the way to point out stuff to discredit his own reputation kind of seems silly, but stranger things have happened. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also found no support for the assertions made in the article in either the Consumer Affairs articles or Mr. Gilliland's resumes (whoever this is). The titles of the edit changes made by Doctor Octagon might be construed as abusive. As for calling someone an environmental activist, there are serious problems with this. An environmental activist for whom? What does this person do? Is, for example, Patrick Moore an environmental activist? Clearly, from the page, some people say yes, others say no. In any case, it is much better to include assertions that are published by reputable sources (a website is not inherently a good source), such as a government body, major news media outlet, academic, or other major organization (or even GM itself). Any letters or interviews, could, of course, be included from MediaWiki. In my mind, an appropriate reference here might be some piece of GM or car magazine marketing literature asserting that the H3 was "environmentally-friendly".

Finally, the disputed section is not critique of the HUMMER, but rather an attempt to answer it. On controversial pages/sections, one usually does not try to respond to arguments within the criticism section. See, for example, the Water fluoridation controversy. I don't think the HUMMER article warrants a separate controversy page, yet. It seems that this type information belongs more in the Hummer H3 page. Kristan 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well, unsigned, Mr. Gilliland is an environmental activist and worked for an internationally acclaimed art group, the Nine Mile Run Greenway Project [2], and his assertions are completely within the field of Interaction Design. The article from Consumer Affairs reinforces the claim that there was a sales slump at GM, and that the Hummer was still selling strong. The attached information regarding Mr. Herbert G. III is relevant to the claim that an environmental activist (and scientist) was responsible for the "Make it smaller" initiative regarding the Hummer product line. Doctor Octagon 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm uncomfortable with the quantity of external links that are being accumulated, many of which seem to be non-notable sites, or are otherwise promotional in nature. I recommend we pare down the list considerably, per WP:EL. --Elonka 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brand/name

[edit]

Hummer is actually written as HUMMER by GM. At the end of every GM (not Chevrolet, Buick, etc., but GM) press release, it says: General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), the world’s largest automaker, has been the global industry sales leader for 75 years. Founded in 1908, GM today employs about 318,000 people around the world. With global headquarters in Detroit , GM manufactures its cars and trucks in 33 countries. In 2005, 9.17 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and Vauxhall. GM’s OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. More information on GM can be found at www.gm.com. (emphasis added) [3] [4] [5]

Encyclopedic references to HUMMER should reflect the proper name as intended and identified by the manufacturer. Wizmo 07:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. What you provided is useful information. The article should reflect and state that the vehicle is branded and promoted in such a way by the corporation. That may change, it may not. It's not a requirement of anyone other than GM to write its name in all caps and it would be equivalent to promoting it to the readers of the article.--In1984 03:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HUMMER is a registered trademark, just like other automotive marques. As such, Yahoo! Autos and Edmunds.com use that spelling. As with GEO (magazine) and SRAM (bicycles), professional writers refer to a brand, product, or service by its trademarked name. HUMMER turned into Hummer because HUMMER wasn't popularized by GM. As a result, most people refer to the brand as Hummer, but some professionals (writers, journalists, businesspeople, attorneys, academics, etc.) refer to it as HUMMER. Legally speaking, brands are trademarked in advanced societies. Nonetheless, as Hummer has become the popular plebeian spelling, it is appropriate to use it as such. However, it would be more appropriate to use the spelling of the registered trademark (all capital letters) in the listing of brands of GM in Template:General Motors brands, just as how GM does in its press releases. Wizmo 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wombat brand?

[edit]

What on earth is a wombat brand? I've never heard the word "wombat" used like this before, and there's no explanation. At the very least the term should be explained. Groogle 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer logo caption

[edit]

Please note the WIKI caption policy. Showing the logo of the brand or the company is not an attempt at advertising. The notion of putting a caption stating that the logo is a logo will somehow reduce the effect of "advertising" is false. Showing the logo as part of a Wikipedia article is not advertising according to the definition of advertising --

"Advertising is paid and/or sometimes free communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled. ..."

Therefore, including a “fair use” image of the logo within a Wikipedia article about the item or organization identified with that particular logo does NOT make it advertising. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that no caption needed for company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. -- Thanks, CZmarlin 07:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Who Killed the Electric Car?

[edit]

In this documentary, there is a segment about tax breaks for the Hummer vs for hybrid or electric cars. The claim is that people who buy the Hummer (in the US) have an equivalent tax break that nearly pays for the car (roughly $100,000), while people who get hybrids/electric cars only get a tax break of about $2,000 (which, obviously, doesn't pay for the car). First, is there any truth to this? Second, should this be explored in the article? If it is true, it shows the government's manipulation of the market to favor Hummers and other large SUVs, and plays a role in the death of electric cars. Ingres77 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Loophole was closed: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz_tips/20030403a1.asp

Also, it wasn't a tax break as you receive with a hybrid, it's a tax-write off which essentially means you are taxed less the cost of the vehicle on your annual taxes. (The same as giving to charity.)66.77.144.5 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H2H

[edit]

What about the hydrogen hummers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

I don't have a copy nearby, at least not at the nearest library, but the Dog and Lemon car guide has some good material for the criticism section. Richard001 (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-terrorists

[edit]

I changed "eco-terrorists" to environment activists since the given sources do not mention any terrorist activities. None of these activists were sentenced as terrorists. Before undoing my change again, please provide a reliable source saying that some environment activists targeting the Hummer were legally accused or sentenced as terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.235.148 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference specifically talks about eco-terrorists and vandalism of a Hummer. Whether they have been caught and found guilty or not, the term has certainly been applied to the vandals who damaged the vehicle and hence we have a source to justify the link to eco-terrorists. In order to follow wikipedia's neutral point of view rules, we need to follow what the references say. Otherwise, we might be seen to be trying to spin the behaviour of these vandals as if it was less criminal and less antisocial than it really is, as indicated by the references. Aside from that, your edit had no edit summary to explain why you made the change, which gave the impression that it was, at best vandalism or, at worst, environmental astroturfing. --Athol Mullen (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AtholM, Please read again the article you mention (OTB) : it reports vandalism over a Hummer car, not terrorism. Despite the title of this (single and militant) article, it is totally exagerated and anti-encyclopedia to state "eco-terrorists target the Hummer". I changed the sentence and mentioned the possible violence of these activists. Ending this section with the word "terrorist" is misleading, it is a very emotional word.

And thank you also not to call me a vandal or worst just because I do not share your views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.207.199 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already pointed out, the reference in the article specifically described the actions of the vandals as eco-terrorism. I'm not going to get into a revert war over this, but I will urge you to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and to leave your personal opinions at the door as wikipedia is about verifiable facts based upon reliable sources not opinions or synthesis or derivation of ideas. I'm a little disappointed that you misinterpreted (I'll assume good faith and assume that you simply misunderstood what I wrote) my explanation that the fact that your original edit lacked an edit summary to explain why you changed what you did gave the impression that it did.
I'll give you an example of leaving your personal opinions at the door: I don't even like Hummers. Yes, I work on them from time to time but I don't consider them to be practical on or off the road. The Australian experience is that they are too wide for vehicle transporters and too wide for established bush tracks, both in their body width and their wheel track, being too wide for the established foliage clearances and wheel ruts respectively. My opinion does not have any bearing on my approach to this article, which is for the content of the references to be the basis for the wording of articles.
Oh, and please remember to sign your posts on talk pages --Athol Mullen (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, I do not log in because I'm not an English speaking participant. Honestly I don't see the OTB article as a reliable source as it comes fom a columnist. It is an opinion and even given this element, the article doesn't refer to any terrorist activities. FYI I'm not personally involved in any kind of activism against SUV or the Hummer and I have never been an environement activist. My contribution was simply because I read the article in English and on the basis of the agruments I gave here I think it is more "NPOV" to call these violent actions against the Hummer environment activism and not eco-terrorism. We should be cautious when using the word terrorism otherwise we undermine the seriousness of actual terrorism. Regards, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.239.89 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer cars preferred by organised crime in Eastern Europe

[edit]

I added one sentence about Hummer cars being recently (from 2008) purchased in relatively large numbers by members of the rising class of utterly rich but undereducated Eastern European Mafia who need such vehicles in order to demonstrate to the public their power and brutality. - This was in addition of the info that the brand is planned to be shut down, etc.

Contributor "CZmarlin" deleted my contribution, claiming that this information was not "referenced".

True, I did not put a citation into my remark, since this is not published elsewere, nore is there - yet - any sociological study of illegal businesses in Eastern Europe and their automotive preferences. However, is a topic that has not been published elsewhere forbidden to be mentioned in Wikipedia? I am living in Sofia, the Bulgarian capital, in the city centre, and I see those Hummer cars (and the individuals who drive them) every single day. They park their cars directly underneath my window. My contribution may sound subjective to an outsider, but I tell you: Everyone who lives in Bulgaria (and other Eastern European countries largely influenced by post-communist organized crime) will confirm that my observation is correct. So, what do you want me to do? First publish this observation in one of the websites I care for (chiefly research and education in Eastern Europe), and then cite it in Wikipedia? Does this make more sense?

A question: How do we ensure that this section of Wikipedia is not being censored by Hummer?

Kind regards,

Christian Geiselmann (Sofia, Bulgaria) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chgeiselmann (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian - Your contributions are most welcome; however, they fall under the category of original research or original thought. The requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia of personal observations are detailed in the "help" section, specifically on this page: Wikipedia:No original research. I hope this helps. – CZmarlin (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GM is Phasing out Hummer

[edit]

No one has said anything with regard to the phasing out of Hummer by the end of 2009. It is mentioned on the front page of the WSJ from Feb. 18, 2009.

H2 commonality

[edit]

The commonality for the H3 is given, but not for the H2. The H2 is based on the GM T800 truck platform, which is the base of the Chevy Suburban, Tahoe, Silverado, Escalade, Avalanche, Sierra, and Yukon.[6] GM had way too many brands and dealers for the number of different platforms they actually made. --John Nagle (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sale of Hummmer

[edit]

Hummer has been sold to the Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company, so the page needs to be changed to reflect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.117.91 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Hummers

[edit]

I think there are only two Hummer models that have been produced for the 2010 model year: the H3 and H3T.

Jeff S (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the report "GM puts brakes on Hummer production" dated January 14, 2010. CZmarlin (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China and Hummer

[edit]

There are mentions that China's MOFCOM, or "the Chinese government" rejected this sale. This statement is not correct. GM/Hummer may have "failed to receive approval," but the the application was never "rejected."

I have covered this story from beginning to end.

Early on, the Chinese government made it known (through editorials in state media, comments by professors etc.) that they were not sympathetic, and that Hummer does not fit in their green plans.

There are several state agencies that must approve an acquisition of a foreign entity by a Chinese company. Applications were rejected for being incomplete, requests for resubmission were made, and over long periods, government agencies claimed they had received no application. The deal was given the run-around, but no formal denial was ever rendered. In the end, GM threw in the towel.

GM has extensive knowledge of the Chinese market through their SAIC joint venture, and are, after Volkswagen, the second largest foreign maker in China. They should have used their connections to better effect.

The article should be re-written. If it's not, I will.-- BsBsBs (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the difference! However meaningless, the following are interesting Google results:
search for: China rejects Hummer - 648,000 hits
search for: China fails to approve Hummer - 25,100 hits (which includes many of the above!)
Of course it is all so very nice to claim that Tengzhong's application to purchase Hummer (at a fire sale price of $150 million) was not "rejected" after it made little or no headway in eight months. I think it would be obvious to any businessperson that this deal would have no chance of being "approved" after observing that it made no progress within the Chinese bureaucracy. Thus, "failed to receive approval" seems to be a euphemism for "rejected" in the Chinese culture. This can be used to make anyone "feel" better. For example, when I get no headway and have "failed to receive approval", it does not mean that I was "rejected" in my social and professional situations! To say I just "failed to receive approval" after waiting eight months, is so much less painful than simply stating the truth: "rejected"! In any case, the article now has additional references to point out the failure of the Chinese company's application to buy Hummer from GM. I trust it meets your criteria! Cheers! CZmarlin (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Thank you. -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the "Hammer" H1 snow proved irresistible

[edit]

In the official state testing for the army revealed an inability to move in snow (For the "Hammer" H1 snow proved irresistible). Others were able to drive.[1][2]

its officiale data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.103 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution, but this is trivia and not notable in the general article about the overall history about Hummer the brand of trucks and SUVs. Not only does it not belong in this article, but likewise not in this talk page. Discussion here should be only about ways to improve the Hummer article, not about conflicting tests of one vehicle model. CZmarlin (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.rg.ru/2013/01/10/broneavto-site.html
  2. ^ http://army-news.ru/2013/01/italyanskaya-bronetexnika-zamyorzla-v-rossii/
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Hummer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V1 Gorilla?

[edit]

Something feels off about this. Are there any other sources to back this up? Mysticdan (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hummer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gay asf

[edit]

this is abt being gay asf just watch james charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.103.97.61 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts of the H3

[edit]

I think it was for battle but then they brought it into luxury and passenger stuff yah WOCWindows10 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hummer&oldid=1207667774"