Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:45, 23 January 2017 edit1989 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,179 edits OneClickArchiver archived Arborway to Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 4 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:44, 15 February 2024 edit undo2600:1700:22f0:59ef:4f3:7347:708b:6426 (talk) →"Urban Legend"?: new sectionTag: New topic
(88 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject California\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	{{TrainsWikiProject\|class=C\|streetcars=yes\|subway=yes\|importance=high}}
	{{WikiProject Buses\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Business\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	}}
	{{oldpeerreview}}
	{{Old AfD multi		{{Old AfD multi
	\| date = May 1 2013		\| date = May 1 2013
	\| result = '''keep'''		\| result = '''keep'''
	\| page = General Motors streetcar conspiracy		\| page = General Motors streetcar conspiracy
			}}
			{{oldpeerreview}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
			{{WikiProject California\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Trains\|importance=high\|streetcars=yes\|subway=yes\|portaldykdate=October 16, 2017}}
			{{WikiProject Buses\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=mid\|American=y}}
			{{WikiProject Business\|importance=mid}}
	}}		}}
	<!-- {{User:MiszaBot/config		<!-- {{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 130K		\|maxarchivesize = 130K
	\|counter = 4		\|counter = 5
	\|minthreadsleft = 3		\|minthreadsleft = 3
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 2		\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
Line 27:		Line 27:
	{{Archive box\|auto=yes}}		{{Archive box\|auto=yes}}

			== Off Topic ==
	== Changing the thesis of the lead.... ==

	...and by strong implication, the article as a whole,is not "Fix typo; Fix grammar." ] (]) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

	== Unsourced synthesis, used tendentiously. ==

	{{tq\| The alleged conspiracy did, however, impact to some extent on all five of the ].}}

	This is neither attributed nor attributable to any respectable source, nor is it so obviously true as to be unremarkable; that's what Wiki calls ].

	It is also either untrue, or remarkably sloppy usage: "impact" meant to "hit,'" literally or metaphorically; it presumes a blow severe enough to have an effect. Using it here without proof is what rhetoricians call begging the question.

	Finally, the deleted assertion begs the question in another way: it assumes, again without any attribution, that there is some particular line of cause and effect. Given that the MMSA's have changed over time, it is entirely possible that simple expansion of MMAs would inevitably take in some number of GM-connected areas. ] (]) 13:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

	:We've been through this. The article documents that affected communities include: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland. The ] shows those places are in the number 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 positions on that list. Pot calling the kettle black on POV oriented words. The crux of your entire POV, again inserted into as many sentences as you can possibly imagine, has been to negate the affect of this conspiracy. In governmental terms, any change from the normal course of events is an impact. We have a conviction for conspiracy related to the purchase of mass transit systems in these cities. That indicates that this is not the normal course of events and thus clearly has had an impact. ] (]) 16:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

	{{tq\|We've been through this. The article documents that affected communities include: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland.}}

	::New York? No. The article documents real indirect GM connections with one medium-sized player in what became metro New York, with absolutely no conspiratorial aspects, at least on the private side. Los Angeles? No. LATL expanded post-war electric traction; the LARy was planning, and had applied for permission to abandon most of it. Chicago? Not at all. Where's the conspiracy? Baltimore? A case can be made, but it's far from clear. Oakland? Oakland had already decided to remove the rails -before- NCL came in; the cite is in the archived talk, IMS.

	::What's more important, this is what a raft of credible scholars say, and that is what an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect, even if the cranks with websites might outnumber them.

	{{tq\| In governmental terms, any change from the normal course of events is an impact.}}

	::Even were this were true, and it ain't, really, where's the change from the normal course of events? Every rich developed country moved away from street rail, more or less at the same time, and more or less for the same reasons. Trams were all but extinct in London and Paris years ahead of New York and DC. Whether this was, or was always, a good idea is a separate question.

	{{tq\| We have a conviction for conspiracy related to the purchase of mass transit systems in these cities.}}

	::No. Only related to two of the five, and the "impact" on electric traction was positive, so much so that a couple reputable local historians, and a whole flotilla of cranks, claimed it was a SEEKRIT SmOKEscReen!!!!! Well, the cranks did, anyhow. The Fitz's used all of LARy's serviceable stuff, and bought a considerable amount more in LA. This was neither altruism nor camouflage, though; they could, and did, make money with it, so they did so for about 15 years.

	::Next, of course, the conviction had nothing to do with bus vs. electric, but bus vs. bus. There is no single example of a trolley line taken out of GM's watch, at it were, that couldn't be justified by simple economics, except, possibly, Beaumont, TX. ] (]) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

	== Mid-20th-century decline of trolleys not limited to North America ==

	I'm not sure if this needs to be addressed in this article or not, but I'm throwing it out there FWIW. It's often overlooked that the traction based transit systems of cities in many countries were supplanted by motor buses. It would be interesting to know what the driving --Hah! A little joke--force behind this trend was, given that most overseas countries were well behind the U.S. in car ownership, whether because of high fuel taxes or because of low average standards of living.] (]) 04:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
	:It's not overlooked elsewhere, of course, but yeah, the average conspirophile telling wouldn't suggest that London and Paris lost their streetcars well before Washington, D.C., for instance.
	:Most of the reasons are alluded to in the article -changes in paving methods; increasing numbers of drivers; political difficulties between cities traction companies and unions, labor disputes, cheaper buses -most conspiracists can't wrap their minds around the fact that the bus...or rather, the "motor coach"...was the luxury vehicle in many markets, costing double the trolley's nickel (This might be the reason for the (dying) expression "It only costs a nickel more to go first class."); inflation; the regulatory framework; suburbanization....

	:What doesn't show enough in the article now, though, is '']'', in the economic sense. Real as some of the benefits of street railways can be, the public didn't pay for them, the individual companies did, and that's a recipe for disaster. This was true even when public agencies owned the railways, since an agency could be tasked with services it was not paid to perform. ] (]) 14:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

	== The phrase 'Conspiracy theorists' is back ==

	I note that with Anmcaff has again introduced the term 'conspiracy theorist' to the article, despite guidance during the recent dispute resolution process (see ] and ]) that the term should not be used unless supported by reliable references. I am going to leave a note on his talk page asking him to address this even though I note that he never agreed to abide by this guidance. There are other major changes to the article which I could contest, but am staying out of this article for the time being. ] (]) 09:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
	:If you have a specific objection to the phrase used about this author, about this particular subject -the Hertz Omnibus lines- then please state it. ] (]) 21:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
	::My objection is that you appear to be ignoring clear guidance from the dispute resolution process, which in this case it does indeed relate to Hertz. My point is however a more general one and I am inviting you to consider reviewing your change. I am not going to get drawn into a detailed discussion in this instance though. ] (]) 01:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
	:::Well, if anyone else can think of a better descriptor for the less reality-centric believers in Big Conspiracy -Snell, Black, Kunstler, Kay &cet- I'd be happy to use it, but this is a distinction that needs to be drawn. ] (]) 17:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
	:I don't see the problem. There definitely was a conspiracy between allied interests to form NCL (does anybody disagree?) There definitely is a theory that their actions destroyed the trolley systems that they purchased (does anybody disagree?) There is no proof that that was the intention or the effect of their actions (the court cases were against the movement to replace the trolleys with goods and services supplied solely by the NCL interests to create a monopoly). There's a conspiracy, a theory, and it's not proven. "Conspiracy theory" seems to be the best description. If this is seen as discrediting unproven or disproven ideas, then so be it. ] (]) 06:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
	::But there are some problems. First, the simple factual one.
	There definitely was a conspiracy between allied interests to form NCL (does anybody disagree?)
	::Yes, I strongly disagree. The Fitzgeralds organized NCL with fairly minimal help from Yellow in 1936. The actions that ran afoul of the Sherman Act began in '38. NCL was a natural outgrowth from the earlier Fitzgerald interests, not a "conspiracy."
	::The big problem, which you appear not to even notice, is that "conspiracy theorist" is a loaded phrase, and has implications beyond that of the words that it comprises. It's an entirely appropriate one for this author, but the article has to be careful not to paint with too wide a brush. ] (]) 15:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::Very well, then there was a conspiracy between allied interests not to form NCL, but instead to aid NCL in replacing trolleys with buses. Do you still disagree with that statement?
	:::Yes, of course "conspiracy theorist" implies a false theory, that the goal of the conspirators was to destroy the trolley system and profit from its replacement. Is there any evidence that the theory is true, beyond what has been proven in court, which is not sufficient to prove the theory?
	:::It seems to me more than anything Black said, the problem is that people disagree on whether the intent of NCL was to destroy the trolleys and then replace them with buses, or whether the intent of NCL was to ensure that the allied interests' products would be chosen once the trolleys died. If the former, then it is not fair to say "conspiracy theorist" because the theory is true. If the latter, then "conspiracy theorist" is, pejorative as it is, is simply true. ] (]) 19:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

	== Cutting the intro down a bit ==

	Do other people think the intro is tool long? It seems like it goes into a bit too much detail and could be perhaps 2/3rds as long. Thoughts?] (]) 16:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
	:I agree, and I suspect this is one of the few areas of wide agreement. Wanna take a first chop? ] (]) 00:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

	== Why do you insist that Edwin Black is a "conspiracy theorist?" ==

	Anmccaff, on 29 June I changed the text to a more neutral phrasing. The same day you undid my change. Please justify this insistence.
	] (]) 22:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

	== Removed tags ==

	I removed the tags from the start of the article. I'm not sure people will agree that the issues are all resolved but after 10 months I think the tags have gone stale. If people still feel there are significant issues please add the tags again but with the current date. ] (]) 03:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
	:I'm still happier with them on, tell yah the truth, but I'm glad to see someone else showing back up. ] (]) 03:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

	==] is not a conspiracy theorist==

	{{u\|Anmccaff}} - Do not restore this statement about him, it is pejorative, it is a BLP violation. It will not stand. I'm not kidding. ] (]) 04:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

	:Hardly. As you should be aware, there are a great many reviews of Black's work that emphasize his questionable scholarship and his tendency to use "the Day-Glo paint of the potboiler", not the "subtle hues of genuine scholarship", to give but one expression of it. As you should also be aware, Black took Snell's possibly mendacious and certainly sloppy scholarship seriously and literally, and read conspiracy into most aspects of transportation history in the twentieth century. Most of his (now largely self-published?) works which he sees as non-fiction are based on a conspiratorial mindset. It's not perjorative, it's an accurate description.

	:Next, this is not a BLP, this is a critique of writing, and there's a good many cites to back it.

	:Finally, if you feel this word too harsh, what would you suggest that reflects Black's non-mainstream position in transit scholarship, and alludes to his penchant for seeing conspirators under every rock? ] (]) 04:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

	:: It very much ''is'' a BLP violation to refer to living writer Edwin Black as a "conspiracy theorist." This matter has already been raised with you by another editor above in this thread and here it is again. Your 200+ edits on this piece do not give you ownership rights over it, nor are you somehow excused from following WP policy regarding Neutral Point of View (which the text I have changed violates) and the Biographies of Living Persons Policy (which the text which I have changed also violates). If you insist on edit warring over your text — which another revert would constitute, as far as I'm concerned — strap on your helmet for a thread at Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents, because that's where you will be heading. Your choice whether you can live with NPOV phrasing or want to have a spotlight shined on your agenda here. ] (]) 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

	* Pinging {{u\|Bonewah}}, {{u\|PeterEastern}}, {{u\|Spearmind}}, {{u\|Springee}}, {{u\|Gladiator Decimus Meridius}}... ] (]) 13:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
	* Pinging {{u\|Trackinfo}}... ] (]) 13:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
	* Pinging {{u\|Capitalismojo}}... ] (]) 13:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
	* Pinging {{u\|Pithecanthropus4152}}... ] (]) 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
	* Pinging {{u\|Mark v1.0}}... ] (]) 13:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
	* Pinging {{u\|RussNelson}}... ] (]) 13:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

	Link to BLP of BLP violation. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons --] (]) 13:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
	:Edwin Black has documents not theories , if Black only had theories he would have been sued for the books he has written. --] (]) 14:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
	::Not necessarily true. Only people with standing to sue can sue. If they are uninterested or unable to sue, then a lack of a lawsuit is not evidence in favor of his theories. An absence of evidence is not evidence. ] (]) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

	This pejorative is just the tip of the iceberg of what Anmccaff has done to this article since he took ownership of it. Since that time, only his opinion and those who support it maters, other opinions are discounted, removed and perjured. This is just one example. If you go back to the article before Anmccaff got involved, you will see the content has essentially reversed itself under his total domination of every edit here, based on a few sources and largely on his very pushy, dominant opinion. Fixing even a single, POV pushing word turns into an extended argument. Welcome to the fray. It is a lost cause at this point. One of my most frustrating experiences on wikipedia. ] (]) 17:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

	::The irony of someone groundlessly accusing another of "perjury" in a thread about "perjorative" writing is exquisite, and will doubtless be dealt with by the wikipowers-that-be here as the dispute goes forward.

	::That said, since no one yet has offered anything but opinion and handwaving, I'll let this rest until some of the other writitors summoned have a chance to get here. ] (]) 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
	:::So the accusation is clear, what you have done is (with virtually no facts) discredited the credibility of any source with a dissenting opinion to yours, thus perjuring the evidence. That is a technique you have used repeatedly. ] (]) 03:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' I have no idea if Black is or is not a conspiracy theorist. I don't know my BLP rules that well so the best I can say is perhaps there is a way to rephrase this to make both sides happy. If there is reliable source that says Black's account is a conspiracy theory then I assume it wouldn't violate BLP to state his theory is considered as such. I think calling him a conspiracy theorist would be treading in BLP waters. That doesn't mean it can't be said but just that we need to follow those rules. If we can't find the sources needed to make such a claim then I think we should default to less inflammatory language. I do struggle with how to present contested conspiracies as I was recently dealing just with such a case. I think the best method is to default to using attributed quotes (rather than WP voice) and more neutral phrasing if there is a dispute about a claim. I'm generally sympathetic to Amccaff's POV on this article. I think the evidence and common sense arguments against the theory are strong but that is my OR opinion and doesn't mean we should overlook guidelines. ] (]) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

	*'''I'd not call him a conspiracy theorist''' and I'd go with the Carrite version below. I'm speaking as someone not all that up Edwin Black (I read his Misplaced Pages article just now and googled him a little) or the subject of this article. But let's talk about the term "conspiracy theorist". Black might be a a "conspiracy theorist" in the sense that ] is an "African-American" or ] is a "singer-songwriter". It might be literally true that he theorizes about conspiracies, but ''come on''. It's misleading and furthermore it's a ], and you know it's misleading and a dog whistle and I know it everyone else reading this knows it, so give it up. The dog whistle is "he's either a nut case or a charlatan", which you get by lumping him in this category, which includes the people whom we actually think of when the term "conspiracy theorist" is bandied about: ] (who seriously believes that the Queen is a reptile, for chrissakes) and Art Bell and Erich von Däniken Chris Murphy and Ben Carson and so on. Edwin Black is like none of those people. That doesn't mean he's necessarily a beau idéal of journalism or that he's ''right'' about this, or anything. But he's not a madman or charlatan, so let's not imply that he is. ] (]) 04:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
	:*No dogs, no whistling: Black resembles, on this and other issues, Mssrs. Icke and von Daniken: he vectors ideas well outside the norm of respectable scholarship. No serious transit scholar believes that the anti-streetcar movement in New York had anything particular to do with GM; it predated it. Populists, roughly, were up in arms against the streetcar companies from the turn of the century, and saw them in oddly conspiratorial terms. All, each, and every one of Black's alleged non-fiction books concerns conspiracy, usually described in somewhat sensationalist terms. (Black, BTW, is one of the few vectors of the Oswald-as-hero Chicago Kennedy conspiracy.) So, whether he is on the road to von Danekin -and his involvement in "restitution" cases suggests that is a possibility, or on the road to reptiles is a moot point; he's off on that end of the scale.

	::There are no decent scholars who suggest that New York's streetcars were targeted by bus-men in the '20s. None. As soon as Hertz's operation got hold of the streetcars, they did exactly what the previous operator had done: ran out their depreciation until forced by the city government to get rid of them, assisted by the WPA, which paid for removing the track. Hertz's operation in Chicago went nowhere that the streetcars and trackless trolleys did, and vice versa, and again, there are simply no reputable scholarly sources that buy this aspect of the story...but Black laps it up, and dishes it out.

	::Now looking at Mr Icke, I see the article manages to avoid saying "kook" or "con" outright, and I suppose Black is owed at least that, but whatever word or phrase is chosen has to reflect his dubiety in this context. ] (]) 05:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

	Looking at the words which ] prefers, it seems to me to be an acknowledgement that Black is a conspiracy theorist. First, it acknowledges that there is a conspiracy. Second, it acknowledges that the theory remains unproven ("alleged"). If someone theorizes that there is a conspiracy AND the evidence is lacking to prove it, why not call them a conspiracy theorist? It is simply the most accurate description, where "writer" misses the point: that the theory is, by all evidence, bunk. It seems to me like the people who want that phrase not to be used are the ones who should come up with citations to scholars who agree with him. Lacking such, the description is apt and should stand. ] (]) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

	:I notice an alert to me about this subject earlier in this section. To be honest Anmcaff has defeated me and I am taking a break from WP editing for a time as a result. I also note that he continues to introduce the term 'conspiracy theorist' into this article despite instruction during a past dispute resolution that the term should not be used unless supported by reliable references (see ] and ]) Personally I think Anmcaff is well past the point where his disruption of WP exceeds any positive contribution to the project and he should be banned. From his talk page I notice that he is getting into trouble on a range of articles and subjects. In in the mean time it is good to see that others are still on the case! ] (]) 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

	{{hat\|Here is the line in question. ] (]) 14:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)}}
	'''Anmccaff version:'''
	<blockquote>
	Conspiracy theorists such as Edwin Black<ref>{{cite book\|last1=Ladd\|first1=Brian\|title=Autophobia: Love and Hate in the Automotive Age\|date=2008-11-16\|publisher=University of Chicago Press\|page=212}}</ref> connect Hertz's New York and Chicago bus enterprises with an alleged larger conspiracy.</blockquote>

	'''Carrite version:'''

	<blockquote>
	Some writers such as Edwin Black connect Hertz's New York and Chicago bus enterprises with an alleged larger conspiracy.<ref>{{cite book\|last1=Ladd\|first1=Brian\|title=Autophobia: Love and Hate in the Automotive Age\|date=2008-11-16\|publisher=University of Chicago Press\|page=212}}</ref></blockquote>


	'''footnote'''
	{{reflist}}
	{{hab}}

	Dear Friends
	It has been suggested by a Wikipedian that I cross-post this message from the Talk page at Edwin Black ... here for the GM Conspiracy Talk Page. So I did a straight cut and paste, editing out any materials not relevant to this topic. If this should be done a different way with a link, I hope someone will assist as I am novice at this matters. If I failed to edit out off-topic content, pls help. The relevant cross-post follows:

	At this location you will see scans from ''Autophobia'', which I have just reread.
	http://www.edwinblack.com/uploads/cmimg_77212.pdf

	I did this because of the following sentence in which my name is used and which became a contentious Talk page item due to the words "conspiracy theorist” and “writers”
	Some writers such as Edwin Black connect Hertz's New York and Chicago bus enterprises with an alleged larger conspiracy.

	The pith of the sentence is that the Hertz bus enterprises were connected to the larger GM conspiracy, and that various writers such as myself have made that assertion. This information is false and the footnote citation is fallacious. In the attached scan, you will see ''Autophobia'' excerpts. ''Autophobia'' is not a historical work involving archival and institutional records and files, such as my own. Rather, as self-described on the inside back cover attached, the book is a "cultural commentary." As such, it is mainly one man's cultural take on secondary and tertiary works – and to Brian Ladd’s credit he did review many. However, I seem to be the only investigator who has actually gone into the archives and prosecution records, which is why my work ''Internal Combustion'' has achieved the status it has. I actually examine the files.

	Now, if we look on ''Autophobia'' Page 212, the footnote citation listed in Misplaced Pages for the contentious sentence in question, we see my name is shown in a footnote mentioned along with many other esteemed historians debating the theory of whether the criminal wrongdoing which received the conviction for conspiracy, was sufficient to cause the later demise of the streetcar. I doubt that there can be any debate over whether a trial and conviction occurred. But did that criminality cause the collapse. Some theorize yes, and some no.
	My book ''Internal Combustion'' on 260 gives my statement:
	'''GM may have killed some important fraction of mass transit. But the policymakers who let it happen—they got away with murder.'''
	Hence my book quantifies the damage as an important '''“fraction”''' and raises the issue of many other policy implications – which is what the debate entails. As usual, I leave it to the reader.
	Further, you will notice nowhere in the footnote on ''Autophobia'' Page 212 and nowhere on the referred chapter text pp.156-157, which I have also appended, is the name "Hertz" mentioned.

	I searched through the book and could not find the name Hertz. Please see the linked ''Autophobia'' Index, with no entry for Hertz. That is because Hertz is not connected to the GM conviction for conspiracy, as Hertz sold its bus companies to General Motors a decade earlier. This conclusion echoes my initial emailed comments to many that Hertz is simply not connected to the National City Lines debacle. Hertz is connected to General Motors a decade earlier in the same way that the ankle is connected to the hip bone as long as you first go through a tibia, fibula, a knee, and a femur.

	To suggest that the Hertz buses of a decade earlier were connected to a prosecuted monopolistic conspiracy in the late 30s and 40s is to actually deceive the reader into thinking that the whole idea is indeed a far-out stretch. What is the far-out stretch is the assertion that Hertz was connected. Hertz was not connected. It appears that this effort to create this impression was not accidental, perhaps assuming that no one would check the actual reference of this obscure book, which trade sales records indicate sold very few copies. I bought a copy a few days ago on Amazon for one penny. However, obscure or not, I check references the way other people routinely have breakfast. This is what I do.
	After I typed the above this message, yesterday shortly after noon, I held a ten minute telephone call with Brian Ladd, the author of ''Autophobia''. The following emerged from our discussion:

	Ladd was at first generally unaware of my book, ''Internal Combustion'', as his 2008 book probably went to bed shortly after mine came out in 2006. (Ordinarily, a book is one year in gestation from manuscript completion.) I referred Ladd to his footnote on Page 212, and with his recollection refreshed he remarked as follows:
	1. He, by no means, contests the fact that General Motors was tried for conspiracy. His intent was to explore the debate over whether those federally-prosecuted actions were significant enough to impact the demise of street cars. To that point, some theorized yes and some theorized no. My thought is there were many factors of which the criminal conduct was a fraction.
	2. Ladd was explicit that there was no attempt to label me "a conspiracy theorist."
	3. He confirmed that while he did no archival work for his volume, his main effort was to address the shrill voices on either side of the question of the trolley demise issue. He confirmed in that vein that his book was a cultural commentary as the jacket copy states.
	4. Tellingly, Ladd did not know that Hertz had bus companies and his book never dealt with Hertz in text or footnote.
	Yet Ladd’s book on p.212 is cited in Misplaced Pages as the basis for a groundless assertion about Hertz, attributed to me and others.

	I cannot debate an anonymous personality. In my field, writers use their own name and take lifetime responsibility for what they write. But I believe the tenor of the Talk comments speak for themselves vis a vis BLP. I know that bias, unverified so-called original research –unsourced and unverifiable, misleading statements asserted as concrete facts, and false citations have no place in Misplaced Pages. The community will know how take its normal internal measures when they see open derision, groundless revision, and lack of precision.
	I think the comments made by PeterEastern on December 15 2015 – I do not know him/her – Carrite, and many others should be taken into consideration.
	Please do not communicate with me via WP, but my web page is open to all.
	I wish the WP community continued progress in its climb toward excellence and the will to increase its best attributes.
	Yours, edwin <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: Hi, I'm here as an uninvolved administrator. It seems to me that calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" without any detailed justification in the form of reliable sources is an obvious BLP violation and can't be allowed. This description of a historian is obviously pejorative and obviously intended to be pejorative. So don't do it. You folks should also look into the claim made by Mr Black that the source doesn't even mention Hertz. Certainly it is not mentioned on the linked page. Looking elsewhere in this article I see multiple violations of ] and ] with opinions stated in Misplaced Pages's voice and arguments constructed by Misplaced Pages editors. For example in the first part of the "Myths and mysteries" section, claims made in 1995 are "debunked" by use of newspaper articles from 1935 and 1914, at least one of which doesn't even appear to be on the right topic and is provided as "irony". This type of editing is explicitly forbidden, and those of you who don't understand that should stop editing long enough to read Misplaced Pages's policy pages. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

	: Welcome Zero. I peeked at your user page and see some of your topic interests. For this reason, you may be interested in the edited remainder of my post with clear linkage to this matter. See the Dec 23 2015 entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Edwin_Black . Further ... I glanced at the contentious and fatiguing back and forth in the GM Streetcar Talk page above. I say ''glanced'' because the whole thing was long long and unreadable for its persistent unneeded combativeness in the face of reasonableness by various editors. Indeed, I am amazing at the tone of some of the posts which include snide and ad hominems -- and in general speak for themselves for their tenor. Knowing this GM topic well, having written books and provided many lectures on transportation and energy history for a decade, and knowing the specific secondary and tertiary sources bandied about in this seemingly endless exchange, and having interviewed some of the personalities including Snell and St. Clair, I must say I agree with PeterEastern and several others. The overtaken article is now extremely partisan, featuring cherry-picked and sometimes distorted information with sources that are questionable to say the least. We see the false use of ''Autophobia'' to drag Hertz into the public article, claiming through a footnote that either author Brian Ladd on p212, I, or any other historian wrote something to justify Hertz coming in to create a bizarre conspiracy claim that does not exist -- except in this article. While I know virtually all of the cited references seen above, I cannot contribute to the article content. My posts (and new account I created) were necessitated only because my name was being used to justify the false allegation against Hertz, and also because other things were said about me in the realm of BLP both here and on the Edwin Black Talk page, especially vis a vis my mother, as duly and repeatedly noted by several others. Know this, I am a person who writes and researches all day every day. I need WP. Just yesterday, I accessed 18 articles on WP on topics as diverse as Saudi desert birds to fortress construction. All of us need WP to be the gem it has painstakingly become. Once a staunch critic of WP, as some might remember, I now see WP as a matured and invaluable asset for good (still improving). The GM article as transformed is not in that spirit or quality. It should start over if it can and rely upon the non-partisan contributions of those that initially made it useful. Not me -- but others. yours, edwin <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::I note that Anmccaff has into this article (associated by ] to Hertz) without any reference to support it, despite clear guidance not to do so during an earlier dispute resolution process (see ] and ]). It is my view that he has been causing havoc to this article (and others on WP I believe) for months and doesn't seem to have learnt anything in the process. Please can we remove his persons editing rights? ] (]) 09:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

	:: Dear Friends,
	Pls excuse formatting errors
	--] (]) 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
	I've been urged to comment about the current status of this article especially in view of a Dec 15 2015 comment by PeterEastern. As a voracious consumer of Misplaced Pages content who does not post, but as one who also has a molecular understanding of the sources being cited--and distorted—in this GM article, here are my thoughts.

	As it stands now, the article is vastly too unreadable and too detailed and solely for the purpose of arguing a very partisan and highly debatable point of view. I see pivotal material unsourced or falsely sourced. There have been false entries. Prior commentators have rightly stated that the article has been hijacked or taken over. Apparently, the goodwill and good intentions of informed and nonpartisan editors, such as PeterEastern--who I do not know and have never communicated with, he is only one, are being overwhelmed by what has been rightly called bullying over argumentation, ceaseless debate, and in general, the wearing down of honest volunteers who cannot spend most of their lives incessantly repairing one article. In this regard, my attention was drawn to this comment as far back as a year ago: “we have felt bullied and pushed aside.”

	I have previously shown that a reference to Hertz, cited to Page 212 of Autophobia, was not only fallacious, but my interview with author Brian Ladd indicated that it could not even be surmised from his work as Ladd stated he had no knowledge that Hertz even owned buses. Yet, this citation was the lynchpin for inserting Hertz’s name and the concept of conspiracy theorists. Nor did author Ladd intend to label other writers as "conspiracy theorists" solely because they have correctly reported the prosecutions of GM and others for criminal conspiracy. Rather, Ladd was analyzing the debated theory of whether the prosecuted criminal conspiracy was indeed responsible for the demise of the trolleys. Know this: the ultimate demise of the trolleys involved matters of urban sprawl, two wars, lots of federal legislation, and many other factors, not just the prosecuted criminal conspiracy involving streetcars. GM’s action were a factor. Not THE factor.

	The fallacious entry involving Page 212 of Autophobia was posted for anyone to check, and none of this information was contradicted in any way by any person. Moreover, I continue to see statements, comments, references, and facts twisted or repeated erroneously … all to suit a highly argumentative point of view.
	I wonder if anyone has thought about the reaction of the Hertz Corporation should they discover that their name has been dragged into a prosecuted criminal conspiracy--and for the first time--and one which is absolutely without merit. I have zero connection to Hertz, but I have an abundant connection to truthful reporting.

	I also did some checking on the contributions of Guy Span, who has previously been cited in the talk page and footnotes for his expertise and, in many ways, chiefly for the denigration of other authors as "paranoid." Who is this Guy Span person? Several have challenged his authority and identity. Please see the bewildering entries below:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#Guy_Span
	Despite years of supposed expertise, “Guy Span” has an Internet footprint of only one basic article in 2 parts for Bay Crossing – a small local issue, http://www.baycrossings.com/about.php, and an identification in the correctly identified by others, that is Examiner.com which indeed is not the San Francisco Examiner which I have written for. Does anyone want to believe the long list of highly specific credentials under a fake name?
	This is what my Google search finds for Guy Span. Go check it.
	https://www.google.com/#q=%22Guy+Span%22
	Where are lectures, continuing pseudonym-tagged articles, academic position, and published books? It has been remarked openly that this is a pseudonym. But it's not a pseudonym for a regular practitioner or writer in the field. I called the Bay Crossings and spoke to one of the publishing execs. The man told me that Guy Span was a pseudonym for someone who volunteered a few articles more than eight years ago in the Bay Area. No one in the office knew his correct name or is current whereabouts, and they haven't known for at least eight years. They theorized he had gone to the East Coast. Now, nothing against a guy who wants to take the pen name Guy Span. But with this exceptionally thin and highly partisan contribution to a local Bay Area paper eight years ago and nothing further, is this the pivotal source that Misplaced Pages wants to use for a report on criminal conduct involving some of America's greatest corporations and its coverage by various authors who are deemed paranoid?

	In my own writing, I could never cite such a source. Indeed, when I cite a secondary source, I very frequently call the author to verify whether what was published is still factual as the author knows it. Using this method, I frequently find errors regretted after publication. For this reason, when I did my own book, I had numerous interviews with some of the main names bandied about in this article, including Snell, St. Clair, Schrag, and many others.

	I'm just a reader, user and supporter of Misplaced Pages's growth. I'm not an administrator. I don't understand the many rules and regulations about banning, locking, etc. This note caught my eye: “It is my view that he has been causing havoc to this article (and others on WP I believe) for months and doesn't seem to have learnt anything in the process. Please can we remove his persons editing rights?”
	I also saw this December 15 2015 assessment that the “disruption of WP exceeds any positive contribution to the project” and calling for banning.
	I know personally of at least two articles which have been mistreated in this fashion. As I understand it, there are many more that other Wikipedians who have their own list of articles and exchanges.

	The only way for Misplaced Pages to continue its climb toward excellence is to take action when it sees references misrepresented, combativeness, bullying, and a consistent wearing down of other editors who are giving of their time without compensation to make a better product … but who we now see give up in sheer frustration. Misplaced Pages administrators, now is the time to step forward.
	Yours, edwin--] (]) 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
	==Guy Span redux==
	EB>I also did some checking on the contributions of Guy Span, who has previously been cited in the talk page and footnotes for his expertise and, in many ways, chiefly for the denigration of other authors as "paranoid." Who is this Guy Span person? Several have challenged his authority and identity. Please see the bewildering entries below: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#Guy_Span Despite years of supposed expertise, “Guy Span” has an Internet footprint of only one basic article in 2 parts for Bay Crossing – a small local issue,

	From a very, very brief skimming of Bay Crossings, I get an easy nine: The two "Paving the Way" pieces, "the Great UP Meltdown", "Fun and Games in Depreciation", "Big Fat Lies", " Amtrak Under the Gunn", "Aging Gracelessly: the Slow Decline of the Port, "Saving the Silver Slug", "So Where are they Now? The Story of the SF Steel Electrics", "Manly Tugboats of SF", and "The Steam Will Rise Again." All solid pieces, except the humor piece about tug names. One is reviewed, quite favorably, by the Society for Industrial Archaeology, one is cited in a MARAD report to Congress, another in an MIT piece on rail. Even pseudonymously, other experts accepted the expertise.

	EB>"http://www.baycrossings.com/about.php, and an identification in the correctly identified by others, that is Examiner.com which indeed is not the San Francisco Examiner which I have written for. Does anyone want to believe the long list of highly specific credentials under a fake name?

	Well, BART did. And Transdef.org did. And the Washington and Lee Journal of Engergy did. Odd, that.

	EB>This is what my Google search finds for Guy Span. Go check it. https://www.google.com/#q=%22Guy+Span%22

	Which, even in the first couple pages, will show far more than two relevant hits for most people.

	EB>Where are lectures, continuing pseudonym-tagged articles, academic position, and published books? It has been remarked openly that this is a pseudonym. But it's not a pseudonym for a regular practitioner or writer in the field.

	How would you be able to tell? BTW, of course it was "remarked openly;" there isn't any secret here to anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of electric traction.

	EB>I called the Bay Crossings and spoke to one of the publishing execs. The man told me that Guy Span was a pseudonym for someone who volunteered a few articles more than eight years ago in the Bay Area.

	A good researcher would also have looked at the publication over time, and seen it was once a real player in the movement to restore ferry traffic, hence the name. Transit and transportaion expertise was a good deal more relevant then. As for "volunteered," I believe the publisher mentioned pay, but that is niether here nor there.

	EB>No one in the office knew his correct name or is current whereabouts, and they haven't known for at least eight years. They theorized he had gone to the East Coast. Now, nothing against a guy who wants to take the pen name Guy Span. But with this exceptionally thin and highly partisan contribution to a local Bay Area paper eight years ago and nothing further, is this the pivotal source that Misplaced Pages wants to use for a report on criminal conduct involving some of America's greatest corporations and its coverage by various authors who are deemed paranoid?

	Yes, it might. It's not a bad overview. Not that I selected it, of course, perhaps the fellow who did would like to address this.

	And the point about paranoia (and inaccuracy? What would you say about someone who wrote:

	"Where these measures were unavailing, formed holding companies to and motorize the railways directly. Thus, it helped organize and finance as a wholly owned GM subsidiary, as well as Greyhound, Rex Finance, Omnibus Corporation, National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, American City Lines, City Coach Lines, Manning Transportation and numerous other concerns, which acquired rail systems across the country, including those in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, San Diego and Oakland."

	Now, you've mentioned that you feel that Mr Hertz, despite being a GM board member, and the operator of the buses that replaced the major North-South trolley lines, and manufactured the buses in question, had nothing to do with a GM plan to attack street rail in New York City. (Or were you just making a very narrow point about their uninvolvement in NCL? Even then, Hertz was a board member, and in charge of the company making and marketing the buses; of course he knew about NCL.) Oddly enough, I agree; Omnibus would have run the trolleys until the maintenance costs got out of line, most likely, and them might have switched to PCCs. The reason they switched when they did was LaGuardia hated streetcars, like almost every mayor before him, and the WPA was willing to take up the tracks gratis. So, whadda ya think of the statement above. Does it sound like a simple factual statement, or is their a certain shrill ring of contentious conspirophilia to it? ] (]) 02:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

	: There are too much false facts above to rebut and open hostility to counter, as I am sure other Wikipedians have already concluded. I note a linked assemblage of false statements, half truths, and misdirection in a section for some reason linked to this discussion. See it above and below here. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Edwin_Black#Just_to_recap_here. To those such as PeterEastern and others who have given up, I sympathize. yours, edwin--] (]) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

	==Hertz==
	EB>I have previously shown that a reference to Hertz, cited to Page 212 of Autophobia, was not only fallacious, but my interview with author Brian Ladd indicated that it could not even be surmised from his work as Ladd stated he had no knowledge that Hertz even owned buses.

	No. You proceeded on some assumptions that are false. It isn't necessary to see the name Hertz, only to see the reference to the New York systems that Hertz was involved with.

	EB> Yet, this citation was the lynchpin for inserting Hertz’s name and the concept of conspiracy theorists.

	No, you took it as such. Any of several cites could have done.

	More importantly, You have entirely missed the fact that the section points out that Hertz became involved in NYC well before the NCL business, and faced considerable political pressure to switch to buses.

	EB> Nor did author Ladd intend to label other writers as "conspiracy theorists" solely because they have correctly reported the prosecutions of GM and others for criminal conspiracy. Rather, Ladd was analyzing the debated theory of whether the prosecuted criminal conspiracy was indeed responsible for the demise of the trolleys. Know this: the ultimate demise of the trolleys involved matters of urban sprawl, two wars, lots of federal legislation, and many other factors, not just the prosecuted criminal conspiracy involving streetcars. GM’s action were a factor. Not THE factor.

	I think you may be a little off on the first assumption, but on the second, we agree. Mr. Ladd appears to have identified you roughly with Mr Snell's position, based on secondary and tertiary sources. You seem to think that puts you in with an "eminent historian," yes?

	EB>The fallacious entry involving Page 212 of Autophobia was posted for anyone to check, and none of this information was contradicted in any way by any person. Moreover, I continue to see statements, comments, references, and facts twisted or repeated erroneously … all to suit a highly argumentative point of view. I wonder if anyone has thought about the reaction of the Hertz Corporation should they discover that their name has been dragged into a prosecuted criminal conspiracy--and for the first time--and one which is absolutely without merit. I have zero connection to Hertz, but I have an abundant connection to truthful reporting.

	Nothing fallacious about it. Mr Ladd is an excellent source here, although it might help to clarify what is meant, exactly, by "defenses of the conspiracy theory", since there are several possible meanings. Do you subscribe to Snell's? ] (]) 03:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

	:PS: What would I expect Hertz (car rental) to do? I'd expect them to read the section, realize that neither I, nor Wiki, nor anyone else her is saying anything against them or their founder that isn't factually correct, and go on about their business. If they took any offense with the idea, I'd expect then to take it up with those who promulgated it, not those who debunked it. ] (]) 04:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

	: I might have misplaced this comment above. There is so much factual to challenge, my comment might be better seen here at the end of a long series of false assertions. Here it is >>
	There are too much false facts above to rebut and open hostility to counter, as I am sure other Wikipedians have already concluded. I note a linked assemblage of false statements, half truths, and misdirection in a section for some reason linked to this discussion. See it above and below here. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Edwin_Black#Just_to_recap_here. To those such as PeterEastern and others who have given up, I sympathize. yours, edwin--] (]) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

	== Re Green Line; ==

	{{Reply to\|User:Whoop_whoop_pull_up}}, why nuke the Green Line reference? If anything, it might be better to add the others. ] (]) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

	== Questionable edits by IP user ==

	] edits seem to have an agenda. Comments on user's talk page suggest industry bias and flagrant disregard for Misplaced Pages guidance and processes. I suggest a case-by-case review of all of users contributions to this page. Edit: I began this process, but soon realized I don't have the endurance to take on such a large endeavor on a topic in which I have no preknowledge nor great amount of interest.--] (]) 10:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	:So, you have neither knowledge or interest, yet you edit? That sounds like a recipe for disaster. It also sounds like a falsehood. ] (]) 15:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

	::While I didn't know about this subject before reading the article. I ''am'' educated in Misplaced Pages policies and methodologies. Please do not conflate the two. Your edits, including the retitling of this section of the talk page—but also as seen throughout your user history—show disregard for NPOV, frequent attempts to tarnish the character of your ideological opposition through use of weasel words, disregard for Misplaced Pages's dispute process, participation in multiple edit wars, ''argumentum ad hominem'' rather than the expected ''argumentum ad rem'', use of dubious tags, and—in my opinion—systematic bias for transportation tycoons and against their employees & customers.--(OP)] (]) 23:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

	::I have reverted your most recent changes. My edit summaries explained the purpose of the edits made. Your edits proport me to be a sock puppet. I have been editing Misplaced Pages since 2004. I closed my user account in 2010 due to concern for my family's safety after the disclosure of my personal information on Misplaced Pages. My subsequent posts have been by IP. You have reverted an edit without regard to the reason it was edited and again used ''argumentum ad hominem'' in your edit summary.--] (]) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::You appear to have added unsourced claims, and to have added a tag with no justification here other than a general complaint about an unspecified agenda, all without evidence. Please stop telling us your history (it's irrelevant) and stop talking about editors (use ] for that). Is there any reason why your edits should stand? ] (]) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

	::::{{ping\|Johnuniq}},check out the "vandalism warning" left on my user page. Yupp, I suspect this sock needs a new ban. ] (]) 04:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I suggest you delete the nonsense on your talk, or if wanted, I'm happy to do it as a third party. Or, ] is good too. I forget why I'm watching this article and have no recollection of past problems. Judging by the IP's content-free spray we will see more. There's no rush and patience will prevail. By the way, your ping did not work. For a notification to work, a '''new''' comment with a new signature has to be added; editing an existing comment does not count because that might send multiple notifications when people fix their typos. ] (]) 07:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::I reverted the IP's edit on the article page; there are simply no good cites for this. Streetcars in OK city went bust in 1940; the company which took over transit initially planned a full replacement with motorbuses; only the war stopped them - a common thread in many transit histories. Jordan Petroleum, or rather their owner, took over soon afterwards end and completed the program. ] (]) 18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ping\|Johnuniq}}, the Sock drawer was filling up. ] (]) 16:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::My suggestion is to stop talking about socks and other editors, particularly on an article talk page. Likewise, the IP should stop talking about other editors. If anyone has a comment regarding article content and how it might be improved, please add a new section. ] (]) 02:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	Message for the shifting IP: This is not the right page for your opinions on other editors. Your recently deleted comments raise no specific issues and merely contain blather voicing dissatisfaction with another editor. Take one example of article content and explain the issue in a new section without mentioning other editors. The place for opinions might be ] but '''evidence''' would be needed, not a content-free spray. ] (]) 02:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

	== For inclusion ==





	Aimed, essentially,at the same audience that once bought into Snellery. ] (]) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:removed the "\|" sign that screwed up the link. Thanks for them btw.] (]) 14:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

	== Non neutral ==

	Springee attempted to remove the non-neutral tag. There is no improvement in the tone of the article. It continues to suffer from the years of overt ] of Anmccaff. Undoing any of this non-neutral content has proven impossible vs his overwhelming forcefulness. His obnoxious might does not make it right. ] (]) 04:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
	:OK, I didn't realize this was still an active issue. Thanks for adding the talk page comment. ] (]) 04:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

	*This page has over 50 sections and is tl;dr. Can someone please succinctly explain why there is a neutrality tag on this article? It is not normal for such a tag to be on an article for two years. ] (]) 15:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

	:*I would second this. I have respect for all the parties involved (and have been involved myself). However, I've also been out of the loop long enough on this article to no longer recall what the issues were. Could we restart the process and try to sort things out a bit? Two years is a long time for a neutrality tag. ] (]) 04:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
	::* is where the article was before Anmccaff got involved. I assume the subsequent edit that originally added the POV tag was him as an IP. In the subsequent 1,000 or so edits, most of the content in this article was reversed, previous sources removed and discounted (called discredited or debunked by Anmccaff). His POV has taken over the article. Any efforts to correct or add sources that do not agree with his POV have been rebuffed. It is an overwhelming task to try to begin the rewrite, made impossible when each step is reverted, with a lengthy, disjointed diatribe associated with each attempt. is but one example of my own attempt to start. Squashed from the word go. ]. Previous editors, including myself, have given up the effort. A few subsequent editors have cleaned up Anmccaff's poor editing style technically and have made minor revisions to his phrasing, but the essence of the content comes exclusively from the forceful opinion of Anmccaff. The lawyer like intimacy of his knowledge of this subject and his work to whitewash the record of the convicted conspirators, strongly suggests to me a ] situation, but of course I couldn't prove it. It is an ironic twist that the POV tag was added at the beginning of his devolvement of the previous version of the article. Now that the article totally reflects his POV, the tag is quite deserved. ] (]) 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==

	Hello fellow Wikipedians,

	I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004181539/http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/holle.htm to http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/holle.htm
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004181539/http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/holle.htm to http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/holle.htm
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531201102/http://www.dctrolley.org:80/exhibits.htm to http://www.dctrolley.org/exhibits.htm

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

	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

	Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

	== Schramm excerpts. ==

	The web piece on Detroit appears to be a fairly faithful excerpting of published work; should it really be called "self published", or should it be seen as a convenience site for a less-available print source? ] (]) 17:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

	== The ] is not a "self-published source" ==

	Don't confuse a convenience cite with the material referenced. ] (]) 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

	== Sourcing ==

			It appears to me that most of this article is off topic, and displays a clear bias. This article should be specifically about the NCL trial, and the results of that trial. The history of electric transit, buses, etc. is given far more space on this page than the trial itself, and there is an abundance of material presented here that is basically just cherry picked opinion. This page needs a good cleaning and refocusing on the primary subject.
	=== Book-length sources listed in "Further reading" not used in body of article ===
	* {{cite book \|author=Bottles, Scott L \|title=Los Angeles and the Automobile \|publisher=University of California Press \|year=1987 \|ISBN=0-520-05795-3}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Black, Edwin \|title=Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives \|publisher=St. Martins Press \|chapter=10 \|year=2006}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Goddard, Stephen B. \|title=Getting There: The Epic Struggle between Road and Rail in the American Century \|publisher=Basic Books \|year=1994}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Hanson, S. and Giuliano, G. editors \|year=2004 \|title=The Geography of Urban Transportation, Third Edition \|publisher=The Guilford Press \|isbn=1-59385-055-7}}
	* {{cite book \|title=Politics of land: Ralph Nader's study group report on land use in California \|year=1973 \|pages=410–414, 488 \|isbn=0-670-56326-9 \|publisher=Grossman Publishers \|author=Fellmeth Robert}}
	* {{cite book \|last1=Hilton \|first1=George W \|last2=Due \|first2=John F \|title=The Electric Interurban Railways in America \|publisher=Stanford University Press \|year=1960 \|isbn=0-8047-4014-3}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Kunstler, James Howard \|year=1994 \|title=The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape \|publisher=Free Press \|isbn=0-671-88825-0}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Lewis, John E. \|title=The Mammoth Book of Conspiracies \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wYQ4AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT152 \|publisher=Constable & Robinson Ltd \|pages=152–62}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Norton, Peter D. \|title=Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City \|publisher=MIT Press \|year=2008 \|ISBN=0-262-14100-0}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Thompson, Gregory Lee \|year=1993 \|title=The Passenger Train in the Motor Age: California's Rail and Bus Industries, 1910–1941 \|publisher=Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH \|isbn=0-8142-0609-3}}

			: Look through the history of the article and this talk page to see that this has been brought up several times before, but always gets swept under the rug by a few people with single-minded resolve] (]) 11:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	=== Journal articles listed in "Further reading" not used in body of article ===
	*{{cite book \|author=Adler, Sy \|title=The Transformation of the Pacific Electric Railway: Bradford Snell, Roger Rabbit, and the Politics of Transportation in Los Angeles \|publisher=Urban Affairs Quarterly \|volume=27 \|number=1 \|year=1991}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Fischel, W.A \|year=2004 \|title=An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects \|work=Urban Studies \|volume=41 \|number=2 \|pages=317–40}}

			:Apparently it's actually the same person using multiple usernames and the issue has been going on for 5 years. Doesn't Misplaced Pages have any kind of report mechanism for these situations? ] (]) 11:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	=== Individuals identified as topic experts in the lead not used in body of article ===
			:it's not about the trial, it's about the conspiracy.
			:a conspiracy has a context beyond the factual actions that were taken to further the goal.
			:this context also makes it a better encyclopedia entry. ] (]) 23:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

			== Coachbuilt ==
	# Scott Bottles
	# Sy Adler
	# Jonathan Richmond

			I’d have to disagree that Coachbuilt.com is not a reliable source for the purposes it is used here for, {{ping\|JzG}}. It’s self-published only in the sense that, say, ] is. I think a look at the history of how and why it was tagged might be useful. ] (]) 09:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
	=== Top-cited source ===
			:{{u\|Qwirkle}}, I checked the site, it has none of the indicia of reliability. I didn't find any About page, editorial policy, list of contributors and credentials. It welcomes user submissions. Feel free to show me the evidence of authority, I am not looking to find hills to die on, but I don't see reliability here, so if you do, maybe you can help me out. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
			::{{u\|JzG}}, I agree that it needs a little digging to figure out responsibility-a simple masthead would be nice, but is the editor throughout. While it “accepts submissions” from damn near anybody, it publishes them as they are vetted, and points out that . Theobald is a member of the , and was at least once. It’s not a bad site, overall.<p>Now, it’s run by a car nut by avocation and profession, endorsed by the same, and it’d be a little chancy to use for some aspects of a subject that was literally front-and-center in the War on Cars, but its a damned good convenience cite for other aspects. The opposition to it here, you will note, was driven by POV-pushing IP socks. ] (]) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
			::: {{u\|Qwirkle}}, Thanks, that's a helpful analysis. I do not object to this source and removal of the {{tl\|sps}} tag based on the above. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 19:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
			::::Thanks, {{u\|JzG}}. Would you mind self-reverting to the status quo ante? There Be Trolls in these woods, and I expect some sock would drag me off to ] if I were to do that. ] (]) 19:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

			== Recent revert... ==
	Meanwhile, the most frequently cited source in this article is a non-peer-reviewed, self-published PDF from a former academic currently a and sole proprietress of in Portland, Oregon:

			A recent edit to this page that set up automatic archiving was . Automatic-archiving is a concept that is instituted or not instituted according to local consensus but keeping outdated/stale content on this page (over '''3''' years old) and that hasn't had a response in years doesn't serve the interests of the article or of Misplaced Pages. The last time content was manually archived was over 3 years ago. So, yeah...this page needs to be archived. And I'm doing that. Cheers, ] (]) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
	{{ cite web \| url = http://marthabianco.com/kennedy_rogerrabbit.pdf \| title = Kennedy, 60 Minutes, and Roger Rabbit: Understanding Conspiracy-Theory Explanations of The Decline of Urban Mass Transit. \| last = Bianco \| first=Martha \| format = pdf \| year = 1998 \| pages = 98–110 \| accessdate = 2008-09-23 \|ref = harv}}{{Self published inline\|certain=yes\|date=January 2017}}
			:Again, I’d disagree. These may not be ongoing discussions, but they reflect the ongoing disputes. ] (]) 19:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

			== First line issues ==
	Statements attributed:

			the opening line of the article is "The notion of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged" when it should read "The reality of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged"
	# "By 1930 most streetcar systems were aging and losing money. Service to the public was suffering; the Great Depression compounded this. Yellow Coach tried to persuade transit companies to replace streetcars with buses, but could not convince the power companies that owned the streetcar operations to motorize."
	# "GM decided to form a new subsidiary—United Cities Motor Transport (UCMT)—to finance the conversion of streetcar systems to buses in small cities. The new subsidiary made investments in small transit systems, in Kalamazoo and Saginaw, Michigan and in Springfield, Ohio where they were successful in conversion to buses."
	# "...was reorganized "for the purpose of taking over the controlling interest in certain operating companies engaged in city bus transportation and overland bus transportation" with loans from the suppliers and manufacturers."
	# "In 1939 Roy Fitzgerald, president of NCL, approached Yellow Coach Manufacturing, requesting additional financing for expansion..."
	# "...and the 1940s, raised funds for expansion from Firestone Tire, Federal Engineering, a subsidiary of Standard Oil of California (now Chevron Corporation), Phillips Petroleum (now part of ConocoPhillips), GM, Mack Trucks (now a subsidiary of Volvo)."
	# "Adding to the confusion, Snell had already joined the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly as a staff member."
	# "The 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, vectors the folktale about the decline of the Pacific Electric."

	] (]) 18:41, 19 ~~January~~ ~~2017~~ (UTC)		Anyone disagree? The reality is that GM and the other major car makers were involved in a criminal conspiracy to ruin mass transit in the USA. ] (]) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

	:~~erm.....so?~~ ~~Ms.~~ ~~Bianco~~ ~~made~~ a ~~career~~ ~~change;~~ ~~how~~ ~~would~~ ~~that~~ ~~invalidate~~ ~~her~~ ~~past~~ ~~work?~~ ~~Despite~~ ~~your~~ ~~frequent~~ ~~labeling~~ of ~~her~~ ~~work~~ ~~as "self-published" it was clearly written~~ ex ~~officio~~. ] (]) 18:55, 19 ~~January~~ ~~2017~~ (UTC)		:I suggest you read the entire article to answer your question. There were plenty of factors besides GM that led to the demise of trolley cars. ] (]) 17:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

	*IP ~~editor~~ ~~(HughD?),~~ it ~~would~~ be ~~best~~ if ~~you~~ ~~would~~ ~~create~~ an ~~account or use your existing account before making such extensive edits to the article~~. ] (]) 14:10, 20 ~~January~~ ~~2017~~ (UTC)		::The fact that they are other factors doesn't mean this one wasn't influential. --] (]) 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

			:It's hard to sustain the purchase of a fraction of trolley systems by motor vehicle concerns as even a minor cause of the ] of the large majority of trolley systems, which were not purchased by NCL. Trolleys were viable in the period between the creation of the ] with the combination of sufficient torque and light weight, until the combination of the ], availability of ] for repair and refueling, and ] vehicles. After that time, trolleys became a ], e.g. San Francisco, New Orleans, and Portland. ] (]) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	=== Self-published websites used as sources for statements in Misplaced Pages voice ===

			== Revert of “further reading” ==
	Despite the generous availability of reliable secondary and tertiary sources, as yet unused in this article, this article relies on self-published websites of transportation and history enthusiasts:

			This source is both widely factually discredited, and already referenced in the main body. Shouldn’t be in further reading if it’s already in the text...and we really shouldn’t link to inaccurate sources without commentary. ] (]) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
	#
			:{{u\|Qwirkle}}, seems fair. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			== highly exaggerated or based on a ] fallacy. ==
	] (]) 16:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

			This recent edit adds two excellent citations that should be added to the article. The content added to the lead does not appear to be supported by the citations or the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article so the content goes there first. In the lead, this gives undue emphasis to these two particular explanations that jumped to the head of the line over the explanations provided in the article. ] (]) 17:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
	Strack is -the- historian for certain aspects of Utah rail, and is reliably published.
			:Ahh. That makes sense; I’d agree that the statement is a little strong for the lead, and maybe draws more of a conclusion than the cites alone would justify. Nuke it. ] (]) 02:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Fettlemap}} that said, I think you will see that several excellent references already in the article, or referenced by it - Bianco, Post, Cudahy, Hilton, Richmond, Bottles, and Adler, e.g. all do adress the folkloric espect of the story. In other words, removal from the lead is justified not by the underlying facts, but by the state of the article. ] (]) 00:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

			A proper summary in the lead would be much more nuanced because there are good sources as you point out. It would not trivialize the scholarship with a content that reflects none of the sources conclusions. It should not sound like an eighth grade book report. ] (]) 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
	Bianco is also reliably published; her own site is used for the reader's convenience.

			== Unintended damage ==
	Detroit transit is, as mentioned before, a convenience cite for published work.

			{{Ping\|Trappist the monk}} In I did a considerable amount of unintended damage. All I intended to do was add a photo. I have reverted the damage, but in the process also undid because I couldn't untangle the two. My apologies. ] (]) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
	The Yumpu piece is usable to document a particular view, I suppose, but it'd be nicer if it had an author and an original source.

			==Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS==
	Coachbuilt has been found reliable for its own work on several occasions, and is only being used as a convenience cite.
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Stanford_University/CALIFORNIA_DREAMING,_THE_GOLDEN_STATE'S_RHETORICAL_APPEALS_(Spring_2023) \| assignments = ] \| reviewers = ] \| start_date = 2023-04-03 \| end_date = 2023-06-11 }}

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)</span>
	1134 speaks for itself.

			== “Who Killed the…?” ==
	Historyisaweapon is also being used as a convenience cite.

			There was a book and documentary discussing this subject, but it seems to have disappeared or I misremembered it. At any rate, there's no link to it here. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
	Convenience links are an accepted practice for access to material otherwise difficult for readers and researchers to get to. ] (]) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

			== "Urban Legend"? ==
	== {{Tone\|talk=Non neutral\|date=January 2017}} ==

			I am surprised to read the term "urban legend" used in this article. The conviction of the companies, and the result of their actions would hardly constitute an urban legend. This is an important and nationally impacting effort which changed the face of transportation in numerous American cities. Should this phrase, which implies the topic of the entry is, itself, false be altered? ] (]) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
	IP Guy, would you care to give an example or three? ] (]) 18:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:44, 15 February 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on May 1 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

General Motors streetcar conspiracy received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Rapid transit / Streetcars High‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 16, 2017

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

Buses Mid‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Off Topic

It appears to me that most of this article is off topic, and displays a clear bias. This article should be specifically about the NCL trial, and the results of that trial. The history of electric transit, buses, etc. is given far more space on this page than the trial itself, and there is an abundance of material presented here that is basically just cherry picked opinion. This page needs a good cleaning and refocusing on the primary subject.

Look through the history of the article and this talk page to see that this has been brought up several times before, but always gets swept under the rug by a few people with single-minded resolve2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5D41:23B2:3C8B:39DC (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently it's actually the same person using multiple usernames and the issue has been going on for 5 years. Doesn't Misplaced Pages have any kind of report mechanism for these situations? 2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5D41:23B2:3C8B:39DC (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

it's not about the trial, it's about the conspiracy.

a conspiracy has a context beyond the factual actions that were taken to further the goal.

this context also makes it a better encyclopedia entry. Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Coachbuilt

I’d have to disagree that Coachbuilt.com is not a reliable source for the purposes it is used here for, @JzG:. It’s self-published only in the sense that, say, Stephen King is. I think a look at the history of how and why it was tagged might be useful. Qwirkle (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, I checked the site, it has none of the indicia of reliability. I didn't find any About page, editorial policy, list of contributors and credentials. It welcomes user submissions. Feel free to show me the evidence of authority, I am not looking to find hills to die on, but I don't see reliability here, so if you do, maybe you can help me out. Guy (help!) 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I agree that it needs a little digging to figure out responsibility-a simple masthead would be nice, but Mark Theobald is the editor throughout. While it “accepts submissions” from damn near anybody, it publishes them as they are vetted, and points out that It may be a number of days, weeks or even months before the builder is updated with the new information. Theobald is a member of the Society of Automotive Historians, and was recognized by them at least once. It’s not a bad site, overall.

Now, it’s run by a car nut by avocation and profession, endorsed by the same, and it’d be a little chancy to use for some aspects of a subject that was literally front-and-center in the War on Cars, but its a damned good convenience cite for other aspects. The opposition to it here, you will note, was driven by POV-pushing IP socks. Qwirkle (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, Thanks, that's a helpful analysis. I do not object to this source and removal of the {{sps}} tag based on the above. Guy (help!) 19:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, JzG. Would you mind self-reverting to the status quo ante? There Be Trolls in these woods, and I expect some sock would drag me off to WP:ANEW if I were to do that. Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent revert...

A recent edit to this page that set up automatic archiving was reverted. Automatic-archiving is a concept that is instituted or not instituted according to local consensus but keeping outdated/stale content on this page (over 3 years old) and that hasn't had a response in years doesn't serve the interests of the article or of Misplaced Pages. The last time content was manually archived was over 3 years ago. So, yeah...this page needs to be archived. And I'm doing that. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, I’d disagree. These may not be ongoing discussions, but they reflect the ongoing disputes. Qwirkle (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

First line issues

the opening line of the article is "The notion of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged" when it should read "The reality of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged"

Anyone disagree? The reality is that GM and the other major car makers were involved in a criminal conspiracy to ruin mass transit in the USA. 82.10.140.18 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read the entire article to answer your question. There were plenty of factors besides GM that led to the demise of trolley cars. Indyguy (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that they are other factors doesn't mean this one wasn't influential. --Ostream (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to sustain the purchase of a fraction of trolley systems by motor vehicle concerns as even a minor cause of the decline of the large majority of trolley systems, which were not purchased by NCL. Trolleys were viable in the period between the creation of the Traction motor with the combination of sufficient torque and light weight, until the combination of the Good Roads Movement, availability of gas stations for repair and refueling, and capable gas powered vehicles. After that time, trolleys became a novelty form of transit, e.g. San Francisco, New Orleans, and Portland. RussNelson (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert of “further reading”

This source is both widely factually discredited, and already referenced in the main body. Shouldn’t be in further reading if it’s already in the text...and we really shouldn’t link to inaccurate sources without commentary. Qwirkle (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, seems fair. Guy (help!) 23:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

highly exaggerated or based on a correlation-equals-causation fallacy.

This recent edit adds two excellent citations that should be added to the article. The content added to the lead does not appear to be supported by the citations or the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article so the content goes there first. In the lead, this gives undue emphasis to these two particular explanations that jumped to the head of the line over the explanations provided in the article. Fettlemap (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahh. That makes sense; I’d agree that the statement is a little strong for the lead, and maybe draws more of a conclusion than the cites alone would justify. Nuke it. Qwirkle (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fettlemap: that said, I think you will see that several excellent references already in the article, or referenced by it - Bianco, Post, Cudahy, Hilton, Richmond, Bottles, and Adler, e.g. all do adress the folkloric espect of the story. In other words, removal from the lead is justified not by the underlying facts, but by the state of the article. Qwirkle (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A proper summary in the lead would be much more nuanced because there are good sources as you point out. It would not trivialize the scholarship with a content that reflects none of the sources conclusions. It should not sound like an eighth grade book report. Fettlemap (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Unintended damage

@Trappist the monk: In this edit I did a considerable amount of unintended damage. All I intended to do was add a photo. I have reverted the damage, but in the process also undid your edit because I couldn't untangle the two. My apologies. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bhumstanford (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Osisbe.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

“Who Killed the…?”

There was a book and documentary discussing this subject, but it seems to have disappeared or I misremembered it. At any rate, there's no link to it here. 2405:9800:B910:DB49:6C81:5BEE:7198:B65D (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Urban Legend"?

I am surprised to read the term "urban legend" used in this article. The conviction of the companies, and the result of their actions would hardly constitute an urban legend. This is an important and nationally impacting effort which changed the face of transportation in numerous American cities. Should this phrase, which implies the topic of the entry is, itself, false be altered? 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:4F3:7347:708B:6426 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories: