Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chrysler: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:53, 5 May 2016 editHughD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →Discussion: request formal uninvolved admin closure WP:CLOSE← Previous edit Revision as of 01:13, 10 May 2016 edit undoSpringee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,471 edits change archive settingsNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Not a forum|Chrysler}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Companies|class=C|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Companies|class=C|importance=top}}
Line 23: Line 22:
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(300d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Chrysler/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Chrysler/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

Revision as of 01:13, 10 May 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chrysler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCompanies Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAutomobiles High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBrands Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTrucks Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks 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.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMichigan: Detroit High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Detroit task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCanada Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.


FiatChrysler

I don't think it makes sense that putting "also known as FiatChrysler" right after "Chrysler Group LLC" in bold letters makes sense because, a) Fiat and Chrysler both have their own corporate websites and logos, b) Chrysler is still technically a separate company, c) Fiat is a partial owner, not full owner, of Chrysler, d) The alliance with Fiat is not analogous to the merger with Daimler (see further information below)

The alliance with Fiat is not analogous to the merger with Daimler because Fiat only partially owns Chrysler and Fiat does not pay Chrysler's employees. The Fiat-Chrysler alliance would have to be more analogous to the Renault-Nissan alliance. So Fiat only takes ownership of Chrysler and share technologies with Chrysler. Heegoop, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When will Chrysler LLC become FCA?

I was under the impression that Chrysler LLC and Fiat S.p.A would become FCA, and all the brands would be under FCA. Wouldn't that mean Chrysler LLC would be defunct and FCA was its successor?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Chrysler. 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. —Talk to my owner:Online 21:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

"It sells vehicles worldwide under its flagship Chrysler brand, as well as the Dodge, Jeep and Ram."

Really?

Imperial's reversion to model status under the Chrysler brand

The article originally stated that Imperial was folded back under the Chrysler brand in 1973 (making it the Chrysler Imperial, again, as it had been prior to the 1955 model year). According to the book, "American Cars, 1960 to 1972", written by J. "Kelly" Flory, Jr., this change took place with the 1971 model year, making the 1970 Imperial the last as a stand-alone brand in that era. Mhrogers (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of controversy section

I recently removed the controversy section from the article. I'm not sure these pages should have a section called "controversy". WP seems to generally stay away from such headings as well as headings like "criticism". That said, the reason why I removed it was because the one item in that section seemed of very marginal significance given the history of Chrysler (founded ~90 years ago and grew to become one of the largest companies in the world). I've posted on several car company talk pages asking what criteria should be used before a controversy is considered significant enough to exist on an article page. For example the Ford Pinto controversies or the GM Corvair controversies seem significant enough for inclusion (the Pinto case currently isn't on the Ford page) because they were either large in scope, deaths were attributed to them, or the significantly changed the legal or public perception landscape regarding automobiles. I've started a Automotive project page conversation about it here Springee (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would suggest adding that Fiat bought a major stake in Chrysler July 2011 and that it is own by an Italian base company. This page indicates that it is an American car company. They manufacture cars in America but it is in fact an Italian car company. Colobull (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
The lede of the article already says it is owned by Fiat. RudolfRed (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


Chrysler → FCA US LLC – Chrysler group changed its name. FoxNewsChannelFan (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose this new title means nothing to people - acronyms are not a good thing for titles . We did not move this every other time because Chrysler is still the most common name. Cant fix copy and paste move...will need help here. -- Moxy (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have left "FoxNewsChannelFan" a note about moves on his talk page...best that problem is talked about in personal space. We can help him there. -- Moxy (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-notable recall

An editor recently added a brake booster recall section to the page . This was a reversion of a removal of the material by me . Per WP:Project Automobile discussion here , this is not an encyclopedic recall. The limitation of recalls to only the most notable was supported by the following editors (notified due to involvement in the discussion): CtrlXctrlV, Dennis Brown, Dennis Bratland, OSX, TREKphiler, Greglocock. Springee (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken. These are mainstream media, and they are not routine coverage. They have named reporters quoting multiple sources, referencing past events in the timeline of the story. No severe crashes or deaths are mentioned, but over 800,000 vehicles were recalled and it was a safety issue. Maybe a close one, but I would probably allow it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of the coverage in the WP article should be limited to only the largest or most significant recalls. So for Ford it would be things like the Pinto fuel system, the Firestone tire recall, probably the cruise control recall. Toyota would be the unintended acceleration related recalls. GM in recent times would be the ignition switch. Perhaps others. When looking at this Chrysler recall I can't see it coming close to any of those Ford, GM or Toyota examples. This is the sort of recall that has never made it to any of the infamous recall lists (not that those are the best indicator). Springee (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree, you are mistaken. Here is the proposal from the project talk page archive:

Proposal:recalls are mentioned in articles when they have received widespread attention in the MSM. This does not include single MSM articles mentioning them as they are announced.

This is an entirely non-controversial, straight-forward application of our due weight policy to automobile recalls. As an experienced editor, you well understand coverage in Misplaced Pages is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, and in any case a Wiki Project may not adopt a local over-ride of our project's core policy. Please note it does not say "only the most notable" may be included or "no recalls may be included." "Only the largest" or "only the most significant" or "only the most notable" would limit Misplaced Pages coverage to one recall regardless of coverage in reliable sources which is clearly incorrect. Regarding your recent section blanking of the "Product recalls" section of this article, is it your position that our article should reflect that Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls? Did you try even the most cursory search before your section blanking? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
HughD, I'm sorry you have brought your edit warring to this article. So you are claiming that this recall, a recall that has been tied to no injuries, would be as notable as recalls like the Pinto fuel tank recall or the Toyota unintended acceleration recall. Plenty of recalls have been covered at the time in mainstream news sources when they occurred. However, most of those (including this Chrysler recall) are forgotten after the fact. To quote the Project Automobile discussion, I respectfully recommend the application of common sense. Don't ban mention of recalls, but only mention the ones that are critical. Big ones, ones that hit the headlines, ones that involve high profile litigations.... That's probably only 1% or 2% of all the recalls that happen. But please let's avoid attempting to dream up "one size fits all rules" where they're not needed and where they can too easily become an excuse for unproductive p**sing contests. HughD sadly came here to make this a p**sing contest. Springee (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please focus on content WP:FOC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
HughD, at least the second recall you added may be significant enough for inclusion. Again, we should use judgement when deciding which recalls will really be notable in 20 years. The first one you restored as part of a wikihounding effort is very unlikely to make it to any long term list. We should be careful about including recent recalls just because they were recent. Springee (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2016(UTC) Edit HughD, please read your sources more carefully before editing the article. Your edit was very sloppy. First, your edit reads like the recall was 1.7 million vehicles related to airbags. The articles you added actually referred to several recalls at once. The airbag recall was ~1.1 million vehicles. WP is WP:NOTNEWS and we should not just repost headlines. Second, the three sources say no fatalities, not two fatalities. Why did you put two fatalities in the article? Again, since there were no deaths this seems like a case of you dumping dirt into the article. Please save that for your Koch family and Tea Party articles, not here. Springee (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines for inclusion of vehicle recalls should be significant enough to shape the product, change the business strategy of the automaker, etc. There are numerous recalls conducted on a regular basis. They are typically not encyclopedic in nature. Having it reported in the general media does not signify a recall's notability for an encyclopedia article. For example, last month's recall by Toyota (one of countless problems encountered by this automaker) involves almost 2.87 million cars (see here) and it has been reported by major media worldwide. However, even this recall does not rise to the level as Toyota's huge historic product defects, and thus this latest recall is not included as part of WP's article on Toyota. Similarly, Chrysler's brake booster recall is not noteworthy for an article about the history of this company. Just because a recall is noted by The New York Times, does not make it newsworthy for inclusion an encyclopedia article. Please notice that there is a major distinction between serving as a news report and that of an encyclopedia. CZmarlin (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

CZmarlin, thanks for removing the second recall article (the one that incorrectly stated 2 fatalities). If you would like to remove the brake booster per talk page consensus I would appreciate it (I've removed it twice today which is once too many). Springee (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The previous consensus that received unanimous support said nothing about "change the business strategy". That's a novel criterion we haven't discussed before. I wouldn't use an undefined word like "unencyclopedic" here (or anywhere), since nobody can say what that word actually means. Instead, we have WP:UNDUE and WP:ROUTINE to guide us. I can't find any objective reason to say this addition is routine; it seems to be a bit more significant than that, if only just a bit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, Thank you for pointing out the guidelines for the weight that should be provided to certain recalls. Given the hundreds of recalls instituted by automakers, there seems to be not even that small "bit" more significance of these in the overall history and operations of Chrysler. I used the example of a recall contributing to a "change in business strategy" after reviewing references to the recalls mentioned in several WP articles about automakers including Toyota and General Motors. These firms were embroiled in recalls that altered their business operations, and they are dully described. The vast majority of automaker articles do not contain sections or list their recalls --- even if they caused numerous fatalities. For example, the Ford article does not mention any notable recalls, although several have become "textbook" cases such as the Firestone and Ford controversy that not only changed business strategies among the involved firms, but also spawned new Federal safety legislation. CZmarlin (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I can see Dennis's view that the project page discussion did not set a rigid standard for notability. That said, I think we can also agree that when you consider the ~100 year life of the Chrysler organization, these recent recalls aren't noteworthy. As a rough guide to notable recalls we could use any number of "top 10 worst recall" type lists. I'm not suggesting that such lists should be the arbiter of notable recall but if no list has mentioned it then perhaps it's not worth noting. Recalls for large numbers of cars seem more and more common as I think the NHTSA has become more stringent and more and more cars end up using the same parts (GM ignition recall). Certainly a recall that ends up before Congress is probably notable but one that just makes it to the auto section of several papers, even national ones, isn't. Perhaps a few more of the editors who were involved in the project page discussion can weigh in. Springee (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course our project has a due weight policy WP:DUE. If you have additional criteria to add may I respectfully suggest policy talk. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. If you think this material should be in the article explain how and why these recalls are going to be notable in 30+ years. So far we have two editors against, one on the fence and you. Springee (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
May I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for the "30+ years" criteria you feel? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
A more realistic question is can you respectfully ask. I suspect the answer is no. Springee (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As it stands as of mid-day on March 19, about 20% of all the references in this article - that is an overview of the Chrysler company (its history, products, and worldwide operations) - pertain exclusively to the vehicle recalls during 2014 and 2015. That is far beyond any reasonable measure of WP:WEIGHT and importance to this topic. Contrast this to total lack of mentioning any product recall campaign in the Ford article. Likewise, these is not a word about foot dragging by ] and other automakers in the massive "killer" airbag recall. Moreover, the information about the Chrysler recalls is designed to overstate the problem and fines. For example, NHTSA imposed $35 million on General Motors for failing to recall cars with faulty ignition switches for a decade, despite knowing there was a problem with the switches, because that amount was the maximum the safety regulator could impose in 2014. As a result, the law was changed by the U.S. Congress. Since then, the largest civil penalty in NHTSA's history was not on Chrysler, but the $200 million imposed on Takata for violating the U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Moreover, in March 2014, Toyota agreed to pay a fine of $1.2 billion for concealing information and misleading the public about the safety issues behind the recalls on Toyota and Lexus vehicles affected by unintended acceleration. The Chrysler recalls are not nearly as notable in comparison. In short, there is WP:UNDUE emphasis for these rather "ordinary" recalls by Chrysler. The entire section is a massive collection of WP:NOTNEWS that is presented in a way that violates WP:IMPARTIAL guidelines. If User:HughD wishes to campaign against automobile recalls, then such information could go into the Product recall article or a separate Automotive recall list that could also link separate articles that include the 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls and the Firestone and Ford tire controversy. Unfortunately, User:HughD has just added a new "Reception" section that attempts to "document" the unsuitability of all Chrysler products - even though only the most recent two years are discussed from among the company's almost 100 year history. That is quite a leap of judgement. CZmarlin (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your collaboration on other articles, regarding neutrality with respect to reliable sources, would be welcome. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
By convention on Misplaced Pages, in historical contexts "largest" is assumed to read "at that time" so that we may avoid asking our readers to read "at that time" everywhere. Thank you for your comments. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear User:HughD, Please note that context matters in an encyclopedia. There is no validity to your claim that WP's convention is to assume that readers will know that "largest" also means as "at the time". The specific guideline for this is spelled out in WP:ASOF. It states that "information that is valid only at a specific moment in history, such as population statistics and current events" must be appropriately tagged with "as of" so that there are no assumptions. Please also recall that "the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines". It is important that contributors "exercise judgement when determining what should be included". Specifically the WP:BALASPS policy, which your edits do not conform, is unambiguous:
"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."
Your cooperation in keeping to WP guidelines will be appreciated. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done "at the time" added. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The contended content is very obviously due weight; multiple noteworthy highly reliable sources for the contended content include The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg Businessweek, the International Business Times, CNN, BBC News, CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and the Associated Press. Additional noteworthy highly reliable sources are available upon request. Hugh (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you claim that you have "done" the corrections to your contributions. Please study the guidelines because they specifically state: "events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" and remove the material that is disproportionate to the overall outline of the history, organization, and products of this automaker. The recalls of 2014 and 2015 are not notable for this article, as are your "reception" additions. WP articles are not a directory or a buyer's guide with product reviews. Moreover, your attempt to claim that other editors are violating the three revert policy and "vandalizing" this article are cynical and mean-spirited. CZmarlin (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
As an experienced editor, you well understand coverage in Misplaced Pages is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, not proportional to a personal evaluation of what topics are important and which are not. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, you have objected to the inclusion of the "Recalls" and "Reception" subsections, and you have cited policies WP:DUE, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BALASPS, thank you; however, I believe you are misapplying these policies. May I respectfully ask you, is your interpretation of these policies that a Misplaced Pages article may include nothing negative, critical, or unflattering about its subject? Outside of the "Recalls" and "Reception" subsections, might I ask you to please identify one sentence that you might consider critical or unflattering to Chrysler? Re-reading the article, I can't find anything, outside of "Recalls" or "Reception," that a major stockholder or Chrysler executive might take even mild exception to. Is all of reliable sources free of critical opinions or unflattering events in the story of Chrysler? In other words, do you think the article as a whole is neutral with respect to reliable sources? Do you believe the long lifespan of a corporation means that any transitory critical opinions or unflattering events in any one year are to be excluded from our article? What do you think? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC) CZmarlin, I would appreciate your thoughts on these questions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


  • I have removed HughD's BOLD addition of recalls and reception as well as the lead entry. It is clear there is an on going debate about the merit of this material and if it has sufficient weight to be part of this article about Chrysler. Current consensus is against with only HughD pushing for inclusion. Given the material is questionable in a subsection it clearly should not go into the lead. The reception section also is highly questionable since it reflects only a current snapshot of the products. Misplaced Pages is encyclopedic, not news. Rather than continuing a pattern of disruptive editing, the correct next steps if HughD feels this material should be included would be the various content dispute resolution options including RfC, 3rd opinions and noticeboards. HughD is familiar with all these options and should use them rather than restoring material that is currently 3:1 editors against. Springee (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" WP:DRNC. Thank you.Hugh (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well it's a good thing that wasn't the material was removed. Springee (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Recalls" section blanking

Concerned editors are here asked to please clearly explain, with reference to policy and guideline, how it is remotely possible that, contrary to vast noteworthy reliable sources, Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for asking about this issue in the talk pages for this article. You seem intent to stretch the "notability" guideline to keep adding recalls that are not significant to the almost 100 year history of this automaker. WP articles are not for news reposting for every event or recall. Similarly, you will notice that only the most significant product recalls are included in articles about other companies. Most auto manufacturers have no mention of recalls, even though their cars have multiple actions involving numerous issues each year. For example, the General Motors WP article includes only the ignition switch, although that company has had many product recalls affecting millions of vehicles. The Toyota article only includes those that involved Congressional Hearings, impacted sales and reputation, as well as cost the company billions of dollars. In other words, just because a recall is covered by multiple media sources they do not mean they should be included in the articles about the automaker. An encyclopedia is not a collection of all information.
Moreover, please do not keep adding material under discussion into the article until the issue of your contributions is fully resolved here. Until this is decided to include, on the basis of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER guidelines, your contribution will be removed. CZmarlin (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Recalls" subsection was added to this article in November, 2014 and section blanked without discussion on March 14, 2106. The burden is on concerned editors to defend the section blanking by convincing their colleagues, with specific reference to the due weight policies of our project, that our article should reflect their unique point of view that Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to directly address this disingenuous claim in particular because the only reason why HughD is here is because he was searching through my edit history. The "blanking" I am accused of was the removal of a two sentence paragraph that was the entire section. As others on this talk page have said the brake booster recall was not notable enough for inclusion in the article. Since it was the ONLY item in the recall sub-section, the subsection went with the two sentences. I assume HughD doesn't support keeping empty sections. The "no discussion" isn't really true either. I used a two sentence edit tag to explain why the two sentence paragraph was undue. I do not believe the article shouldn't have a "recall" section, only that only recalls that are WP:DUE should be included. Chrysler as an organization is almost 100 years old. There are literally thousands, likely hundreds of thousands of RS articles about the company. Using a key word search to find ten recent articles doesn't mean they are due for inclusion in the WP article. Springee (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Article content can be edited no matter when the initial content was contributed. This does not change the burden of proof. This does not require proving a negative statement that you have made. In other words, inability to disprove your claim of no noteworthy recalls does not prove that these particular recalls belong in an encyclopedia article that provides an outline of Chrysler's history and major operations. Moreover, all editors are subject to the three revert rule. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please stop engaging in edit warring. Springee (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@CZmarlin and Springee I stumbled upon Ford Pinto being protected due to edit warring and then looked at this article and noticed that it's only semi-protected. Then I looked at the edit history and noticed there have been more edits by HughD since the "please stop engaging in edit warring" message. I know that he has been edit warring with both of you from viewing the edit history of the Chrysler and Ford Pinto articles. Just thought I'd keep you two up to date on these edit wars.--Kevjgav (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@CZmarlin and Springee I just left a message regarding this on the user's talk page using the same words you two have been using.--Kevjgav (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. An edit warring ANI has been opened . Please feel free to comment there as well as here. I think it is clear that HughD is warring given that he was continuing to add disputed material while it was being discussed and after it had been removed by two editors. Springee (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed standard for inclusion

In reviewing the Automotive Project archived discussion on notable recalls I get the impression the discussion was really focused on the notability of recalls as it relates to a particular model. Note the example is the Ford Falcon AU, not Ford Motor Company. In thinking about what level of recall or controversy would be significant enough for inclusion in the main company's article I would propose only including topics which are notable enough to be a stand alone article. That doesn't mean a stand alone article is required but that such an article would withstand an AFD review of notability. For example, the Ford-Firestone tire controversy and recall has a stand alone page and thus I think it would be significant enough for inclusion at Ford Motor Company. The large number of Focus recalls, while covered in mainstream news, would not. When dealing with a topic as large and complex as a major car company it would seem that almost any section of the main article should have enough available content to become a sub-article in and of itself. Springee (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"only including topics which are notable enough to be a stand alone article" Our project has a due weight policy WP:DUE. Summarizing, it is coverage in reliable sources that is determinative, not coverage in other Misplaced Pages articles; this is fundamental and accepted by all Misplaced Pages editors. Neutrality with respect to reliable sources is a pillar of our project and is not negotiable. Please take your ideas to policy talk for consideration by the community if you wish. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
That is an interesting idea. So you want to include material that was covered in just a few articles. Google shows 3.5 million news stories about Chrysler. So, if we generously say you have 50 articles, 50/3500000=0.001429% of the article. I guess we can round that one off to zero. Thanks for your repetitive suggestion! Springee (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

The article is not neutral with respect to reliable sources. The article includes no facts or events which might be considered unflattering to Chrysler, although numerous noteworthy unflattering facts and events are manifest in multiple noteworthy reliable sources. The article includes no opinions on Chrysler or assessments of Chrysler, although numerous noteworthy opinions and assessments are manifest in multiple noteworthy reliable sources WP:YESPOV.

Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources.

Safety

On July 26, 2015, the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) levied a $150 million fine on Chrysler for failing to complete 23 safety recalls on more than 11 million vehicles, the largest fine ever imposed by the NHTSA at the time. The NHTSA established an independent monitor on Chrysler. Chrysler agreed to buy back up to 500,000 vehicles with defects which could result in a loss of control by the driver, the largest buy-back in NHTSA history. The head of the NHTSA said in a press release that “Fiat Chrysler’s pattern of poor performance put millions of its customers, and the driving public, at risk.” On December 10, 2015, the NHTSA fined Chrysler $70 million for failure to submit legally required death and injury data.

The neutral level of coverage of Chrysler safety issues and the regulatory response is not none. The following noteworthy reliable sources, among others, need to summarized in the article to further neutrality:

  • Vlasic, Bill (July 26, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler Gets Record $105 Million Fine for Safety Issues". The New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2016. In their most aggressive crackdown yet on auto safety, federal regulators on Sunday levied a record penalty of $105 million against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles for failing to complete 23 safety recalls covering more than 11 million vehicles. The civil penalty is the largest ever imposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on an automaker for recall violations...
  • Spector, Mike (July 27, 2015). "Record Fine for Fiat Chrysler; Settlement assesses $105 million for lapses involving recalls, sets up independent monitor". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Federal regulators hit Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV with a record $105 million fine for recall lapses covering millions of vehicles, adding to mounting scrutiny of the auto maker's safety practices.
  • Plungis, Jeff (July 26, 2015). "NHTSA Says Fiat Chrysler to Pay $105 Million Fine, Buy Back Some Vehicles". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV agreed to a record $105 million penalty following a U.S. Department of Transportation investigation into whether the company delayed acting on safety defects on light trucks and cars. Fiat Chrysler also agreed to buy back more than a half-million vehicles -- mostly Ram pickups -- whose defective suspension parts could cause a loss of control, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a statement Sunday.
  • "Fiat Chrysler hit with record $105 million fine". CBS News. July 27, 2015. Fiat Chrysler is preparing to pay a record fine of $105 million, the largest ever imposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for mishandling safety recalls on millions of vehicles. The settlement also forces the car maker to repurchase more than half a million Ram pickup trucks built between 2008 and 2012 because defective steering parts can cause them to lose control. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  • Snavely, Brent (July 27, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler forced into biggest vehicle buyback ever". USA Today. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved March 18, 2016. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Monday it imposed the largest vehicle buyback program in its history on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles because the automaker has yet to fix nearly 200,000 pickup trucks and SUVs it recalled in 2013.
  • Pishdadian, Erica (July 26, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler Cited By NHTSA, Agrees To Pay $105M Fine For Faulty Recall Procedures". International Business Times. Retrieved March 18, 2016. "Fiat Chrysler's pattern of poor performance put millions of its customers, and the driving public, at risk," said NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind in the press release.
  • "Fiat Chrysler hit with record fine by US regulators". BBC News. July 27, 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2016. "Fiat Chrysler's pattern of poor performance put millions of its customers, and the driving public, at risk," NHTSA administrator Mark Rosekind said.
  • "Fiat Chrysler hit with $70 million federal fine for safety reporting failures". The Washington Post. December 10, 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler has been hit with a $70 million federal fine for failing the submit legally required safety data to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...Fiat Chrysler set a record this year in recalling 11 million vehicles in the United States, a total of 38 different recalls.
  • Ivory, Danielle (December 10, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler Is Fined and Agrees to Fix Safety Reporting System". The New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2016. As part of a $70 million settlement with federal regulators, Fiat Chrysler said on Thursday that it would overhaul its operations to ensure disclosure of deaths and injuries tied to potential defects in its vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which announced the settlement and fine, said the automaker had failed in a significant way to make some reports over more than a decade.
  • Isidore, Chris; Marsh, Rene (December 10, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler hit with $70 million safety fine". CNN. Retrieved March 18, 2016. The nation's auto safety regulator hit Fiat Chrysler with a $70 million fine Thursday for failing to report safety information about crashes. As a result, accidents in which people were killed and injured were not investigated by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Automakers are required to report information about accidents to NHTSA so that regulators and automakers can determine if a vehicle has a defect that needs to be repaired through a recall.

Recalls

In April 2014, Chrysler recalled brake boosters from 867,795 Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles manufactured in the years 2011-2014 stating that, "A brake booster's center shell may corrode and allow water to get inside, which could freeze and limit the braking ability of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash."

Between 2012 and 2015, Chrysler recalled over 1.8 million US vehicles to address a chronic problem with injuries resulting from inadvertent air bag deployment. On September 10, 2015, Chrysler issued three notices regarding air bag and steering problems that recalled about 1.7 million Ram pick-up trucks. Chrysler said they were aware of two injuries related to a defect in which a short circuit in the steering column deployed an air bag without a crash. Weeks later, Chrysler cited seven injuries in a recall of 316,000 2003 Jeep Liberty and 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees to address the air bag issues. On February 4, 2016, Fiat Chrysler cited "potentially related" minor injuries in an announced recall of about 112,000 2008 and 2009 Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town and Country minivans and 2009 Dodge Journey and Volkswagen Routans, to address a problem with the failure of air bags to deploy in a crash or inadvertent air bag deployment.

In 2015, Chrysler recalled a record 11 million vehicles in 38 different recalls.

The neutral level of coverage of Chrysler recalls is not none. The following noteworthy reliable sources, among others, need to summarized in the article to further neutrality:

  • Read, Richard (April 2, 2014). "2011-2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango Recalled For Brake Flaws". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Chrysler has issued a second recall for the Grand Cherokee and Durango, which includes vehicles from the 2011-2014 model years. As with the previous recall, this one is designed to fix brake-pedal feel
  • Meier, Fred; Snider, Mike (April 2, 2014). "Chrysler recalling Jeep, Dodge SUVs for brakes". USA Today. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Chrysler on Wednesday made a second, much larger recall in a month over a brake defect in Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Durangos. The current recall covers 867,795 vehicles worldwide of Chrysler's 2011 to 2014 model-year Grand Cherokees and Durangos, according to documents posted on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website. Brake booster corrosion in these vehicles can let water to get inside booster, which can freeze and impair braking capability.
  • Ebhardt, Tommaso (April 2, 2014). "Chrysler Recalls 867,795 SUVs Worldwide for Brake System". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Chrysler Group LLC is recalling 867,795 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango sport-utility vehicles to install a shield to protect brake boosters from water corrosion.
  • Jensen, Christopher (April 3, 2014). "Chrysler Is Recalling Two S.U.V.s". The New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Chrysler is recalling more than 850,000 sport utility vehicles because of a possible braking problem. The recall covers the 2011 to 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango models, including about 644,000 in the United States.
  • Jensen, Christopher (October 30, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler Recalls More Vehicles for Airbag Defect". The New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler has been quietly grappling with a different chronic airbag problem: Since 2012, it has now recalled 1.8 million vehicles in the United States because its airbags may deploy without an accident...On Friday, it issued the most recent recall, for almost 316,000 2003 Jeep Liberty and 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee models, including 284,000 in the United States. The automaker said it was aware of seven injuries, including one concussion, with the others involving scrapes or bruises
  • Jensen, Christopher (September 10, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler Recalls Nearly 1.7 Million Ram Pickups". The New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler is recalling almost 1.7 million Ram pickup trucks over airbag or steering problems, the automaker said on Thursday...Of the three recall notices, the largest covers about a million vehicles in the United States in which a wiring harness in the steering column could short-circuit, causing the driver's airbag to deploy without a crash. The automaker said it was aware of two reports of injuries related to the defect.
  • Young, Angelo (September 10, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Recalls 1.7M Pickup Trucks, Including Ram 1500, Mostly To Ensure Driver's Airbags Don't Deploy Unexpectedly". International Business Times. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) announced Thursday three separate recalls covering about 1.7 million Ram trucks, mostly to check or fix a wiring issue that could cause the driver's side airbag to deploy inadvertently.
  • Snavely, Brent (September 10, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler recalls nearly 1.7 million Ram pickup trucks". USA Today. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles said today it is recalling nearly 1.7 million recent-model Ram pickups to check or repair wiring harnesses, airbags and steering components that may be faulty.
  • Wattles, Jackie (September 10, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler recalls 1.7 million Ram trucks". CNN. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler is recalling more than 1.7 million trucks for steering wheel and airbag issues, the company said Thursday. The recall includes 1.3 million Ram trucks that may have faulty steering wheel wiring, which could cause the driver-side airbag to deploy. It involves Ram models 1500, 2500, 3500 from 2012 to 2014. Fiat Chrysler (FCAM) said in a statement that there have been two injuries connected to that issue.
  • "Fiat Chrysler to recall 1.7 million trucks; new food safety rules issued". The Washington Post. Associated Press. September 10, 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler is recalling more than 1.7 million trucks to fix problems with air bags and welds in the steering system.
  • Read, Richard (October 30, 2015). "Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep Liberty, Dodge Journey Recalled: 757,000 Vehicles Affected". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 18, 2016. The 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee and 2003 Jeep Liberty may suffer from an electrical problem that could cause airbags and other safety systems to deploy without warning...
  • Bomey, Nathan (October 30, 2015). "Inadvertent airbag deployment prompts Fiat Chrysler recall". USA Today. Retrieved March 18, 2016. The recall involving the airbag problem affects 351,989 units of the 2003 Jeep Liberty and 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee sport-utility vehicles, including 284,089 in the U.S.
  • "Fiat Chrysler recalls about 900,000 SUVs to fix airbags, brakes". Reuters. October 30, 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles said it was recalling nearly 900,000 vehicles around the world to fix issues related to airbag deployment and anti-lock braking systems. The company said it was recalling 284,089 model-year 2003 Jeep Liberty and 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees SUVs in the United States to replace some components linked to the deployment of airbags. The company said it was aware of seven injuries related to the problem but no accidents.
  • Tabuchi, Hiroko; Jensen, Christopher (February 4, 2016). "Yet Another Airbag Recall Will Affect Five Million". The New York Times. On Thursday, Fiat Chrysler said it would recall about 112,000 2008-9 Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country minivans, as well as the 2009 Dodge Journey and Volkswagen Routan, which the automaker made for Volkswagen. It said it was aware of "seven potentially related injuries, all minor."
  • "Automakers to recall 5M vehicles for another air bag problem". Detriot Free Press. Associated Press. February 4, 2016. Retrieved March 18, 2016. On Thursday, Fiat Chrysler announced the recall of 112,000 2009 Dodge Journeys and 2008 and 2009 Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country minivans for the same problem. The Fiat Chrysler recall also includes the 2009 Volkswagen Routan minivan, which was made by FCA.

Reception

Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2015 Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat finished at or near the bottom in the Consumer Reports 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey, and in 2016 Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom. All Fiat Chrysler brands finished in the bottom third of Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card, citing "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of the 2015 J. D. Power and Associates Initial Quality Study.

The neutral level of coverage of reviews, surveys, opinions, reception, and evaluations of Chrysler is not none. The following noteworthy reliable sources, among others, need to summarized in the article to further neutrality:

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

You have done a partial dump of news stories related to Chrysler vehicles. Nevertheless, these do not prove the "lack of neutrality" in an article about the outline of the history, organization, and products over the almost 100 years of this automaker. The existence of media reports about various recalls does not indicate their weight in the overall background of this company. All automakers have been involved in quality problems and recalls of cars that involve millions of units. A rough measure of the number of news sources that describe them can be shown by conducting a sample using Google News search:
  • "Toyota recalls" = About 38,200 results
  • "Ford recalls" = About 19,000 results
  • "Honda recalls" = About 7,410 results
  • "Chrysler recalls" = About 4,880 results
  • "Mercedes Benz recalls" = About 4,560 results
Even though other automakers have done through serious recalls involving major safety problems with numerous fatalities that have even become textbook cases in management and ethics (such as Ford and Honda), these is no mention of them on the Ford or Honda WP articles. In other words, your bias is evident here by placing so much weight to media reports about Chrysler. CZmarlin (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, the very definition of our project's due weight policy is weight relative to media reports WP:DUE. May I respectfully observe that arguments in a content dispute based on the state of other articles are not usually effective on Misplaced Pages WP:OTHERSTUFF; however, may I remark somewhat off-topic here in this thread on this article talk page that I look forward to collaborating with you and others on improving coverage in our project of the safety and regulatory record, and on opinions, evaluations and reviews, of automakers. As far as the current neutrality of this article, which after persistent section blanking is as of this post lacking safety, "Recall" and "Reception" coverage, may I respectfully ask you to please identify one sentence in the current article which might be read as unflattering or critical of the subject of the article? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC) CZmarlin, I would please like your thoughts on this question. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, you have cited WP:IMPARTIAL; is it your interpretation of policy that all article content must be neutral? Rephrasing, may a Misplaced Pages article include noteworthy events or opinions about a subject, even if those events or opinions are negative or unflattering to the subject? Thank you for your reply. Hugh (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, have noteworthy reliable sources had anything to say about Chrysler's reliability? How would you summarize what noteworthy reliable sources have had to say about the quality of Chrysler products? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, has anything noteworthy occurred in the regulatory history of Chrysler? say, a fine, perhaps a record-setting fine; or a buy-back program, perhaps a record-setting buy-back program? How would you summarize what reliable sources have to say about the regulatory history of Chrysler? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, has Chryler had any noteworthy struggles with recalls, perhaps multiple recalls for related issues, say maybe with airbags or other? How would you summarize what reliable sources have to say about Chrysler's recall history? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, may I respectfully ask you to please identify one sentence in the current article which might be read as unflattering or critical of the subject of the article? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with CZmarlin that the way in which HughD is proposing to integrate the material is not UNDUE and not NPOV. Springee (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, you are confusing HughD's motivations here. HughD is here not because he cares about Chrysler but because I am here. Here on his talk page HughD states that I have been wikihounding him and says that I have been asked to avoid him . He is correct that several editors have suggested that we avoid one another. That was fine with me. However, rather than avoiding me, HughD looked through my edit history and sought me out at the Ford Pinto article. When that article was locked and when RfC opinions were not going his way he moved here and reverted my edit to the article. It wasn't a coincident that the first edit was a reversion of one of my edits. That his behavior is disruptive and his edits unproductive is not surprising as his block history shows. I'm sorry he has subjected other editors to this warring that is actually intended for me. Springee (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please join the talk page discussion, thank you! pinging 2016 article editors: Typ932, Historianbuff, ViperSnake151, Mistersalesserio, MiniEstadi1982, Emergencyninja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Additional editorial voices regarding the neutrality of this article with respect to reliable sources? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose removing NPOV tag from article

The NPOV tag on the article is not supported by legitimate concerns on the talk page. A single editor WP:NOTGETTINGIT doesn't warrant a NPOV tag. Springee (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask that rather than start a new talk page thread for a vote you return to the thread above, the one linked to from the POV article tag, and there engage in dialog toward addressing the neutrality of this article? The POV tag asks you not to remove it until the neutrality issues are resolved. A colleague asked you a question at near the end of the above thread to which you have yet to respond. Neutrality is not negotiable; neutrality is not subject to a local consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed. HughD is the only editor who supported the tag or the claims of NPOV. Since no other editor has supported the claim the tag is removed by consensus. If he feels a NPOV tag is warranted he should get at least one other supporting editor before restoration. I would remind HughD that just because you feel there is an issue doesn't mean others agree and the use of the tag is subject to group consensus. I would suggest you open a NPOV discussion if you feel that people here aren't giving your POV the weight you think it deserves. Springee (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion of the neutrality of this article in the above thread. As per the clear instructions in the POV article hat, please do not remove the POV article hat until the neutrality issues are resolved. Please do not edit war to remove the POV article hat. Edit warring over a POV article hat is particularly abhorrent form of edit warring. Thank you in advance for your commitment to our project's pillar of neutrality. Hugh (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
HughD, you have revenge tagged this article because it isn't going your way. Simply claiming their is a NPOV issue doesn't make it so, especially when NO other editors support your POV.
Kevjgav, Dennis Bratland, Kennethaw88, Mike Cline, Drmies, Moxy, As recent editors to this page I'm seeking editorial input. HughD contends that the removal of content from the article here , , and discussed on the talk page here constitutes a NPOV issue and thus justifies placing a NPOV tag on the article page. Do you agree that the article should be tagged? Do you have opinions on the content HughD proposes to add to the article? Thank you. Springee (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
May I respectfully ask, how did you select these colleagues for notification? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging wbm1058, RudolfRed, FoxNewsChannelFan. The original list was all Talk Page editors through February (though I missed FoxNewsChannelFan and wbm1058). I've now extended the list to all 2016 Talk Page editors. Springee (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support — Time and again I see WP editors treating articles about companies or their products like WP:BLPs, showing excessive caution in trying to protect the subject from the slightest hint of criticism if it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard. We do not need to be that vigilant about protecting the image of a car or a car company. We're not risking real-world harm to a living person. This kind of information is well-sourced and widely-publicized. Yes, we agree that many recalls are UNDUE and ROUTINE, but only in the sense that a lot of articles get too crufty with mentions of routine recalls, and lacking the context for how common recalls are, it can kind of look bad if we spend too much time on one. Kind of -- but there are many, many more important things. Even if this is a recall that we might prefer to not mention, the paragraph does not throw off the whole article's neutrality. At most an inline or section tag could be added, and even then, there's not really a need because the discussion is happening right here.

    Warning readers the article is not neutral just leaves them scratching their heads for no good reason. And we don't need to be so aggressively deletionist about the history and facts related to cars. It's a matter of polishing the article to perfection, not a glaring flaw. Maybe it should be left alone until such time at it gets nominated for GA so we can work on more important things? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Chrysler. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—Talk to my owner:Online 13:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction

Should the following content be added to the article?

Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.

References

  1. ^ Bradsher, Keith (May 7, 1998). "Risking Labor Trouble and Clash Of Cultures, 2 Makers Opt for Size". The New York Times. p. 1. Retrieved March 19, 2016. But its vehicles also dominate the bottom rungs of the annual auto-reliability ratings by Consumer Reports magazine.
  2. ^ Zhang, Benjamin (February 23, 2016). "Consumer Reports just called out Fiat Chrysler for its alarmingly bad quality". Business Insider. Retrieved March 18, 2016. On Tuesday, Consumer Reports singled out Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in the publication's annual Automotive Brand Report Card as having vehicles lacking in quality. "All Fiat Chrysler brands finished in the bottom third of the rankings, with Fiat coming last," Consumer Reports wrote in a statement...Consumer Reports' criticism of the Italian-American automaker is just the latest in a string of reliability concerns stemming from the company's products.
  3. ^ Stoll, John D. (June 17, 2015). "Fiat Chrysler Brands Get Poor Ratings in Quality Study; J.D. Power survey of buyers shows Chrysler, Jeep and Fiat brands among worst performers in industry". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 18, 2016. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV brands were ranked at the bottom of an influential quality survey released Wednesday, the latest sign that the Italian-U.S. auto maker is struggling to keep up with mainstream rivals at home and abroad.
  4. Stewart, James (July 30, 2011). "Salvation At Chrysler, In the Form Of Fiat". The New York Times. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Quality was abysmal. Every model in the company's Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands ranked in the bottom 25 percent in the J. D. Power & Associates survey of customer satisfaction.
  5. LeBeau, Phil (March 18, 2015). "Five worst auto brands for service under one roof". CNBC. Retrieved March 19, 2016. A new survey measuring the satisfaction of people taking their vehicles into dealerships for service ranks five Fiat Chrysler brands as the worst in the auto industry. The company's Jeep nameplate received the worst ratings among all 20 brands in the J.D. Power Customer Service Index...
  6. Wayland, Michael (October 29, 2014). "Quality chief leaves FCA amid recalls, poor reliability". The Detroit News. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Chrysler historically has performed poorly in Consumer Reports' reliability ratings...
  7. Jensen, Cheryl (October 29, 2010). "Survey Forecasts Reliability of 2011 Cars". The New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2016. Some things didn't change from the 2009 survey: Scion finished in first place again — Japanese nameplates took seven of the top 10 spots — and Chrysler ranked lowest among all brands. Again...The rankings come from the 2010 Annual Car Reliability Survey...
  8. Jensen, Cheryl (November 2, 2014). "In-Car Electronics: Thumbs Down". The New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2016. ...Consumer Reports said in its latest Annual Auto Reliability Survey...Scores improved for Ford and Lincoln, but Chrysler's brands were near the bottom of the heap.
  9. "Highlights From Consumer Reports' 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey". Consumer Reports. October 20, 2015. Retrieved March 18, 2016. The Fiat-Chrysler brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat) finished at or near the bottom again.
  10. Hirsch, Jerry (October 20, 1015). "Tesla quality problems could signal challenges with Model X and Model 3". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 24, 2016. The 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey relied on data from more than 740,000 vehicles...Fiat-Chrysler products took five of the seven bottom spots.
  11. Snavely, Brent (February 23, 2016). "Audi, Subaru score, FCA brands lag in Consumer Reports". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles brands had an especially bad showing this year as all four brands ranked by the magazine finished at or near the bottom...FCA's Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep and Fiat brands were all ranked 25th or lower. Ram was left off the list because the magazine only tested one model, the Ram 1500, and only ranks brands where at least two models have been tested.
  12. Irwin, John (February 23, 2016). "Audi supplants Lexus in Consumer Reports' 2016 report card on reliability, road tests". Automotive News. Retrieved March 24, 2016. ...in Consumer Reports' latest annual report card on brand reliability and road-test performance...Fiat Chrysler brands finished near the bottom of the rankings.
  13. Wayland, Michael (February 23, 2016). "Detroit automakers struggle in Consumer Reports ratings". The Detroit News. Retrieved March 24, 2016. ...2016 Brand Report Card...Four Fiat Chrysler brands were among the worst six ratings.
  14. Picchi, Aimee (August 25, 2015). "The most hated car in America". CBS News. Retrieved March 25, 2016. This is a phenomenon with Chrysler that goes back since we've been doing this really, showing that they've hovered near the bottom.

Hugh (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Comments? Hugh (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Notice to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Brands, WP:Village pump (miscellaneous), Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Companies. Hugh (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) update to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles Hugh (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) notice to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States Hugh (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC) notice to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Canada Hugh (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Michigan/Detroit Hugh (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Trucks Hugh (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:RSN Hugh (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:ORN Hugh (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Michigan Hugh (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD, please stop spamming notices Your notices since April 18th have become excessive. Certainly additional notices after the RfC period is over have moved from appropriate to inappropriate notification. It's time to let it go. Springee (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to all for your engagement in this dispute resolution effort. Good discussion. We will extend the RfC comment period by one week in order to facilitate broadening community participation on this proposal beyond the four (4) new editorial voices who have so far joined our discussion on this article talk page and to more accurately assess community consensus. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to keep this discussion open for any longer. There is no general agreement to grant any extensions. More than one month is sufficient for this topic. An individual contributor cannot keep moving the goal simply because they do not seem to accept the outcome. It is time to move on and expend efforts into more productive tasks to improve the encyclopedia, rather continuing this discussion. Additional time will not make these particular and recent product recalls and opinions now suddenly change to make them significant and noteworthy enough to be included within an article that should be an outline of the almost 100 year history of this corporation. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Outcome? What outcome? Five to four !votes is not consensus. If we don't leave this open in the hopes that more participation will lead to strong consensus one way or the other, then it needs to move to a whole new venue to be resolved. That doesn't sound fun. Keeping a discussion open is not moving the goal post. Moving the goal post would be changing the criteria for inclusion of a paragraph from NPOV objections to "noteworthy enough". WP:NOTEWORTHY makes clear that it's an error to claim that content must be "notable" in order to be included in an article. It's an error to claim that WP:NOTNEWS is a reason to expunge whole sections of articles; nothing in WP:NOTNEWS supports this at all. Both of those deal mostly with article creation, not content.

The fact that Chrysler has had multiple bankruptcies, bailouts, and ignoble changes of ownership cries out for explanation. Why Chrysler and not GM or Ford? There is no omniscient explanation, only opinions. The data from JD Power, the opinions of Consumer Reports, the judgement of analysts and historians is exactly what belongs in this, or any article. There is no policy to support expunging any whiff of criticism until it is perfectly balanced -- an impossible standard to meet -- only the goal that we must "strive for" neutrality. Misplaced Pages:Five pillars repeats that point three times. In order for content to strive for perfection, the content first needs to exist. Stonewalling is the death of open, collaborative editing.

Instead of edit warring over whether or not to close this discussion, you should recognize the lack of consensus for closing it, and request a decision by an third party Admin, per Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions. Or should I revert your revert? That would be silly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RfCs are normally closed after 30 days unless there is consensus to reopen....that doesn't close the discussion, just remove the RfC link. I was wrong as to the count, as I ignored the "me too" posts, as should anyone closing the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
An RfC is dispute resolution, please respect our project's processes. There is no deadline WP:NODEADLINE; the discussion is active, and there is no reason to close this discussion at this time. CZmarlin, you need not fear coverage in our article of recalls; the content proposed above by this RfC includes no mention of recalls; please help us all focus on content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Please keep notices brief as was requested here .

Oppose: A Google news search for Chrysler turns up ~3.5 million hits. So based on a pure measure of weight the recall articles cited above are insignificant. However, beyond that, in the discussions above this RfC it's clear that most editors understand that when you are dealing with a topic as big as one of the largest and most significant industrial organizations of the last 100 years we can't include everything even if it was discussed recently in the news. We must maintain a long term, perspective and avoid issues of WP:NOTNEWS. Recalls and other such information is valid material for a car company's parent article but only in the most significant cases such as the Toyota recall which ended up before Congress. The material in question simply doesn't rise to the level of significant (lacks WP:weight) when compared to the scope of this article. It would be like insisting that WP's World War 2 article discuss the failure to rescue the USS Indianapolis sailors. Yes, the ship's sinking is widely discussed in RSs but it is an insignificant topic in perspective to the total war. Springee (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Too big for "Reception"? The article is about a manufacturer, but currently has no content about the reception by consumers of its products or independent evaluations of its products. Meanwhile, vast noteworthy reliable sources include content related to general comments about the quality, reliability, and reception of is products. The exclusion of this topic from the current article requires us to ignore noteworthy reliable sources, and so is non-neutral WP:DUE. The article is currently at Prose size (text only): 28 kB (4455 words) "readable prose size", about 56% of when length might be considered an issue WP:PAGESIZE; I believe we have room for some content summarizing the reception and evaluations of this manufacturer's products. A manufacturer may not be so big or have such a long history that there is no room in Misplaced Pages for content summarizing general comments regarding its products reliability, quality, and reception WP:YESPOV. Does Chrysler have a well-known reputation regarding its quality? Yes, it does. And it is not in our article. It's embarrassing. Readers cannot not take this article seriously. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
So we should include reviews of the DeSoto models? What about the 1936 lineup? Should we talk about that? You don't seem grieved that the article fails to mention how Chrysler's 1984 minivans set the standard for minivan configurations for the next 30 years. You don't seem to care about Chrysler's impact on the full size pickup truck market with both the "semi-truck" styling and the Cummins engine branding. I'm sorry you think a brake booster recall is encyclopedic. That might explain why you so frequently find your edits being opposed by others. By the way, repeating your failed arguments doesn't make them better. However, it is WP:TEND and a sign of a disruptive editor. Springee (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources cited in support of this content exhibit a strong consensus spanning decades, from the 1990's to the present, and the content summarizes sources generalizing across the entire product line, rather than at any particular make or model. The proposed content is highly relevant and due weight. Hugh (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
HughD, your arguments are not at all convincing. Note that no one thus far has supported your POV. That should be a strong hint. Please stop WP:bludgeoning the talk page. Springee (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposer. The proposed content is highly relevant and due weight. The article is about a manufacturer, but currently our article has no content about the reception by consumers of its products or independent evaluations of its products. Meanwhile, vast noteworthy reliable sources include content related to general comments about the quality, reliability, and reception of its products. Reliable sources cited in support of this content exhibit a strong consensus spanning decades, from the 1990's to the present, and generalizing across the entire product line (rather than specific to any particular make or model). The exclusion of this topic from the current article requires ignoring multiple noteworthy reliable sources, and so is non-neutral WP:DUE. The article is currently at Prose size 28 kB (4455 words) "readable prose size", about 56% of when length might be considered an issue WP:PAGESIZE; we have room for some highly relevant content summarizing noteworthy reliable sources on the reception and evaluations of this manufacturer's products WP:YESPOV. A subject simply may not have such scale or have such a august history that a neutral article is impossible. The reputation of the quality of this manufacturer is a prominent aspect of this manufacturer, and readers cannot take our article seriously if this content is excluded. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC) The current article violates policy, specifically, our neutrality pillar; please see WP:CLOSE#Policy. The current article non-neutrally excludes numerous noteworthy reliable sources and currently includes no facts, events, or significant opinions which might be considered unfavorable or unflattering to the subject. The RfC proposed content partially addresses this violation. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC) As per WP:CLOSE, formal closure by a neutral, uninvolved administrator is respectfully requested, since neutrality is at issue, and the discussion has at times been contentious. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Extensive polemical statements do not contribute value to the discussion. Even if referenced, the recent recalls or rankings (that originate mainly from one source, but are extensively replicated by numerous "reliable" outlets) are not notable to the main topic of this WP article, which serves to provide readers with an outline of the almost 100 years of an automaker's history, operations, products. CZmarlin (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For example, a quick and brief sample of views on the company's recent operations and reception include the following:
Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, thank you for your comment. We are in agreement that the appropriate level of coverage in our article of the reception and independent evaluations of this manufacturer is not none. I look forward to collaborating with you on improving the neutrality of this article by bringing new sources and content covering reception and evaluations.
You wrote "one source." Sources for the above proposed content include The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, generally accepted by most Wikipedians as highly noteworthy and highly reliable sources, as well as the Los Angeles Times, The Detroit News, CNBC, the Business Insider, and the Automotive News. May I respectfully ask, in your view is Consumer Reports a noteworthy reliable source for independent product evaluations and assessments of customer reception? Please note how WP:USEBYOTHERS clearly conveys noteworthiness and reliability.
For decades, multiple reliable sources have commented on the quality and reliability of Chrysler's product line as a whole, and that is the specific topic of the content proposed by this RfC. We agree particular Chrysler makes and models have been recognized in some categories in some model years; as you know each has their own article.
May I respectfully ask, how would you summarize all these sources? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The reputable sources that you list - such as the all newspapers, other mass publications and media outlets, and even the industry trade publication, Automotive News - do not perform road tests, collect defect or recall data, nor do they conduct actual analysis of the vehicles. They typically report the results that have been conducted by organizations such as Consumer Reports or JD Powers. Therefore, the original source for quality or performance remains the same regardless of how many citations you can find on the same subject. Furthermore, you do not seem to comprehend that the particular product recalls you seem to focus on and the other current information, do not rise to the level of notability in the overall history, operations, and products during the almost 100 year history of this automaker. There is no valid reason to include reviews of only the recent products without also providing a careful and referenced presentation of Chrysler's market reception rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction of all its product lines. starting from 1925. In other words, for your findings to be appropriate in this article, they should summarize the reputation and market reception for all the years and product lines. You cannot "cherry pick" what you think is important to include in this article. CZmarlin (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
"starting from 1925" Your collaboration on improving the coverage of customer reception of independent evaluations would be welcome. Good point, the RfC content summarizes the consensus of noteworthy reliable sources in recent decades, we can easily clarify, point taken. A comprehensive treatment of the last century is not necessary before we may begin adding well-sourced, neutral content on recent decades; Misplaced Pages is never done, there is no deadline, there is always other stuff. We agree that no content related to customer reception and independent evaluations is non-neutral, and in fact a major embarrassment undermining our credibility with anyone coming to this article with even a vague familiarity with this manufacturer. We cannot ignore a broad consensus in reliable sources because it is unflattering to a subject. The RfC proposed content makes no mention of recalls. The sources for the content proposed by the RfC include highly noteworthy, highly reliable secondary sources; this is the very essence of the notion of noteworthiness which is the basis for our due weight policy in Misplaced Pages; we are summarizing what noteworthy reliable sources have to say about Chrysler quality; were the same content sourced solely, directly to the primary reports of the testing labs Consumer Reports, J. D. Power and Associates, and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, it might well be vulnerable to criticism on noteworthiness grounds. Thank you for your comments. How would you summarize the sources we have compiled so far? Hugh (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
CZmarlin, the third of the three sources you recently brought to article talk appears to be a company blog of a vendor to Chrysler. I would please like to hear your thoughts on how we might best summarize the sources we have gather together so far. I would be interested in your evaluation of the due weight in this article of the 2009 comment attributed to the CEO of Chrysler specific to the Jeep Cherokee from 2009, excerpted below. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Our policy WP:YESPOV asks us to include critical analyses and significant points of view, as well as facts, as represented in reliable sources. The article currently includes substantial content on the products manufactured by this manufacturer; for example,

The 2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee very soon became the most awarded SUV - Ever.

...sourced to the CEO. The above RfC proposed content is generalized across the entire product line of the manufacturer over recent decades, not to particular makes or models or model years. May I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for your view that general content regarding the quality, reliability, and reception of a manufacturer's products is off-topic in an article on a manufacturer? Hugh (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Damotclese, thank you again for your participation in our feedback request service. Hugh (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Damotclese, I would like to please hear your thoughts on the current article content excerpted above; should it be removed? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear User:HughD, There is no point in repeating the same argument over and over and over again. This "discussion" serves no purpose because you seem not to accept the independent input of other contributors. Please also understand that your position is contrary to several Misplaced Pages policies that include WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Thank you, CZmarlin (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Could you please elaborate regarding how WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV apply here in your view? The best I can tell the content proposed by the RfC is a reasonable neutral paraphrase of multiple noteworthy neutral reliable sources. What do you think? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The RFC feedback request service bot sent me. This is exactly the kind of criticism which corporate PR departments hate with every fiber of their biased being, but which is absolutely essential to uphold the WP:NPOV pillar policy of presenting both positive and negative information to obtain a properly balanced article. This principle is so important that WP:LEAD requires that the most significant controversies should be summarized in articles' introductions, which would be appropriate with a sentence or two here. EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article needs to be a calm and balanced presentation of information. This article covers about 100 years of history during which there have been achievements as well as controversies in the firm's businesses and operations. The bankruptcy problems, for example, are noteworthy in Chrysler's history and take up much of the article's introductory lead section. There is no mention in the lead about its other positive business accomplishments. There is no "balance" by referring to the company's numerous engineering and product innovations. The lead does not mention Chrysler's role for the war effort and the space programs. These major endeavors deserve at least a sentence or two in the lead. Moreover, it is wrong to claim that WP serves as a venue to counter corporate PR departments. The recent and rather ordinary product recalls along with the reports about certain quality rankings pertain to particular individual products. As has been mentioned numerous times by several contributors, they are not an important aspect concerning this corporation's one century of business history. CZmarlin (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
"...reports about certain quality rankings pertain to particular individual products." Please see the content proposed by the above RfC. The content proposed by the above RfC refers to the entire Chrysler product line. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
We look forward to collaborating with you on bringing new reliable sources and noteworthy content regarding Chrysler's positive business accomplishments, numerous engineering and product innovations, and role in the war effort and the space programs; there is always other stuff. The article is currently Prose size (text only): 28 kB (4455 words) "readable prose size"; about 56% of where article length begins to be a concern as per our guideline WP:SIZERULE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear User:HughD, Do you really mean to say the recall information has so much weight and apples to all of this firm's operations over its entire 100 years of business? Please realize that this company has more than automobile product lines. Even if examining the current corporation (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles - FCA), its businesses include various vehicle lines as well as other interralated operations such as marketing and financial services, production systems. parts and components, as well as iron and castings. You focus only on the current aspects of "reception and rankings" that is not relevant in the overall history of this corporation, and just keep raising them over and over again. You do not respect the views and explanations of other contributors to this article. Repeating your failed arguments does not make them stronger. Thank you for inviting me to improve the article. However, I have a limited time available to contribute for WP and this particular never-ending "discussion" is not productive. CZmarlin (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This lacks a where, a why, and looks like unusual WP:OR. The RFC does not say what section it would insert into, whether it is for the lead, a new section, or going too an existing section -- and none of those seem suitable places, so it lacks a WHERE to put it at. The proposal did not go into the reasoning that crafted this or makes it notable so lacks a WHY to add it. Finally, it just seems a rambling listing of randomly collected criticisms assembled with no notability or stated point or clear writing narrative to it, so it's a badly done and WP:OR, one that is also unusual because the Ford or ] articles do not have content about quality reviews. So, for multiple reasons, no. Markbassett (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
What section would you recommend for this content? A section such as "Reception" is appropriate in an article on a manufacturer who manufactures products for retail consumption.
Could you please elaborate on your view that our policy WP:Original research is applicable to the content proposed by the RfC? The proposed content is a reasonable paraphrase of multiple noteworthy reliable sources. How might you paraphrase the sources so as to avoid original research?
Regarding your point in reporting here at Talk:Chrysler possible deficiencies in other articles in our coverage of reliable sources, in my experience arguments of this form are not useful given WP:OTHERSTUFF. What is your experience? Are you articulating that WP:WikiProject Automobiles has an undocumented local due weight policy by which automobile manufacturers are a special category of retail manufacturer, such that Misplaced Pages coverage of the reception by consumers or evaluation of its products by independent testing is undue?
Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support WP:PEACOCK is an example of Misplaced Pages's strong consensus for preferring "facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance" rather than "unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance". That's why a media list like Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century is a desirable citation in an article. The JD Power survey is one of the most influential and cited statistics about car company reputation and public reaction. Magazine rankings and awards are also important. In general, any Misplaced Pages article should try to 1) tell the reader what the subject is, and 2) tell the reader what the subject's relationship is with the rest of the world. Critical reception is key to that, far more valuable in an article than bland lists of obscure data and minutiae that tend to collect in an article. The meaningless lists of manager names and various financial numbers are far closer to WP:INDISCRIMINATE than rankings, awards, and attributed opinions of subject experts and critics.

    Could this be more balanced? Could it be expanded to cite more postitive and nuanced critical reception? Could it be expanded to trace the JD Power and other rankings over a longer span of time? Yes, of course. Any article could grow in these ways. That's not a reason to nuke any and all critical reception until it has perfect balance. Maybe on a biography of a living person you could make that case, but a company is not a living person and such stringent rules of balance do not apply. Put it in the article so that others can go to work and build the encyclopedia. There needs to be something there before "anybody can edit" it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Dennis Bratland. An encyclopedia serves to provide information in a neutral (as you describe it, bland) way to readers. It is not a forum to either promote or vilify the subject matter. This is also why this article does not contain a long list of the firm's industry firsts, nor all the various accolades and awards that Chrysler and its products have earned over the years. It attempts to provide balance considering the article is a brief summary of almost a century of the firm's operations. It is also interesting to note that you find "meaningless" the names of the top executives and the financial numbers. These are the best indicators of corporate operations. The reality is that those numbers and people describe the condition of an organization. They are more important than any of the outside "experts" or any opinions that happen to be gathered by a company like JD Powers. Rather than being indiscriminate, financial data is critical to the firm, its investors, and all other stakeholders such as suppliers, employees, and the communities in which it has operations. The brief financial condition information allows readers to know how viable it is, how it balances profit with costs, as well as how it measures up to other companies. The people who make up the top management team are indispensable to its current situation and determine a company's future strategy and operations. For example, the chief executive of a company is like the pilot of an airplane; thus, knowing who they are and their experience is critical to the success or failure of the flight. Nevertheless, you have not made a solid case how a few product recalls and a selected set of product rankings taken at a point in time truly pertain to the entire history of the company. During its almost one hundred years, this company has been evaluated by numerous experts and seen both positive and negative reviews. Every automaker has encountered recalls, and the examples included in this discussion are not noteworthy and only pertain to specific units, not the company's entire production. Moreover, these selected outside opinions regarding product quality perceptions also do not add encyclopedic "facts" for the purposes of describing the company in this article. CZmarlin (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I started to write a reply, but I realized that my only answer is to take your comment, and put a {{citation needed}} tag after every single sentence. You have made a long series of unsupported assertions, that, in general, flatly contradict Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, as well as contradict verifiable facts about the world in general. The accusation "you have not made a solid case how a few product recalls and a selected set of product rankings taken at a point in time truly pertain to the entire history of the company" is particularly offensive and slanderous, essentially accusing me of saying almost the exact opposite of what I just said. You are using vague weasel words such as "noteworthy" and "encyclopedic" which serve as hand waving to gloss over the lack of an actual argument here. I don't even know where to begin. All I can suggest to anyone is to start with Misplaced Pages:Five pillars and work their was through each of the major policies and note they say to write articles in a way that is nothing like what you have just asserted. A glance at our WP:Featured Articles on companies, like BAE Systems, Cracker Barrel, NeXT, etc. will show that Misplaced Pages's best content does in fact contain all sorts of this kind of information. Look at the Featured Article about another car company, Holden. We read of "industry firsts", public controversies, media assessments, problems with the product, notable achievements. All the things you're calming are not "encyclopedic" or "noteworthy", whatever those words mean. Sorry. Nope. Nope. Nope.

If you really think there's a basis for expunging this sort of information from articles, by all means cite it. But read carefully because I think you'll find the policies, just like my comments, do not say what you think they say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


  • Oppose:

A majority of your notable "reliable" reference sources, uses information that comes from a third party opinion survey magazine company, named Consumer Reports. All Misplaced Pages encyclopedic information and reference sources must be verified and most importantly reliable, which means "trustworthy." Not all information that is published in magazines and newspapers are accurate and reliable, even if this information is repeated in many different publication sources.


Below are some interesting published facts concerning Consumer Reports and it not be reliable or trustworthy in its annual car reliability report card ratings ...


"For many years, American auto industry advocates have accused Consumer’s Union and its Consumer Reports publication of being biased against domestic American brands. It’s been said that if the identical car were manufactured by Toyota and Chevrolet Chevrolet , CR would rate the Toyota above the Chevy simply based on nameplate. But Consumer Reports always claimed it was nothing but the soul of objectivity.

Now it turns out they were dissembling, if not outright lying, about their objectivity – and their standards. Consumer Reports has been recommending the Toyota brand without bothering to test it or even have any data about reliability to back up the recommendation.'"' (source: Top Speed magazine -10/17/2007)

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/how-does-consumer-reports-justify-rating-without-testing-ar45561.html


"Consumer Reports says it’s the reliability scores that are primarily keeping Chrysler from being competitive. But now the publication is acknowledging there are large swaths of missing reliability data for the automaker, according to Ward’s Automotive." (source: Cars.com 03/06/2011)

https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/03/consumer-reports-admits-reliability-data-was-scarce-for-chrysler/


Historianbuff (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

    • That is a misleading accusation. If Consumer Reports were the only source, it might make sense to try to say this is nothing but CR's bias against Chrysler. But the text in question relies just as much on JD Power, and also mentions the American Customer Satisfaction Index. All three tell a consistent story. Consumer Reports is not an outlier. Are JD Power and ACSI also lying? That seems improbable. Adding to that, we can easily find historical records of Chrysler's struggles with quality and reliability problems, and a poor consumer image reaching back at least to the early 1960s: , , , , , , etc.

      Consumer Reports has been challenged at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in the past and has easily won consensus that it meets our standards by a mile. You could try once again to change that at WP:RSN, but I'd not put money on it.

      You could certainly add nuance to the story of quality and reliability comparisons between the Detroit automakers over time, but in order to get to a fully contextualized, balanced, nuanced article, we have to let editors expand the article. Holding every edit to a standard of NPOV perfection is the end of growth of Misplaced Pages. Only BLPs approach such a high standard. For everything not a BLP (and corporations are not people), the broad consensus is that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and that means in order to move incrementally from a flawed article to a better article, the flawed article, or flawed content, must first exist. Stonewalling like this, because there are nits (and there are always nits) destroys the collaborative, incremental process that Misplaced Pages is built on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD, In a recent WP:ARE you have been arguing that you are editing in the best interest of WP and that your efforts are not disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert, Laser brain, and Dennis Brown have thus far given you the benefit of the doubt and not blocked your editing for 30 days. Less than a month ago you were strongly advised to back away from this topic and the Ford Pinto topic in an ANI ]. The editors of the Pinto article even went as far as requesting a topic ban based on your edits noting that you followed me to this topic as a form of harassment. Rather than taking the hint and assuming a lower profile and more cordial behavior you are returning to WP:TEND behaviors. This ARE hasn't gone the way you hoped so you started campaigning in the last few days and have attempted to extend it. The way I read it, your proposed text is dead in the water. Some aspect of the content should be considered but I would ask that you back away from the topic as others have suggested. Certainly you should not start a new edit war. Springee (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how your edit warring is any less disruptive than HughD's edit warring. Both of you should stop. I don't particularly care about HughD's past behavior, and this page is not the proper venue to talk about an editor's behavior. Take it to his talk page or a noticeboard. This talk page is for discussing the article, not editors.

I also disagree with the claim made by more than one participant that the proposed text has been rejected. There is a 5 to 4 deadlock, with no clear consensus. It has been neither rejected nor accepted. There is general agreement that discussion of Chrysler's past should be balanced, with context, comparison with others so Chrysler's sins are held in the same light as other automakers, and due credit is given for Chrysler's successes as well as errors or failures. I say WP:SOFIXIT: instead of bickering over what is wrong with this proposal, why not write something that most of us can agree on?

There's no further need to edit war over whether or not to extend this RfC. I've requested closure by a third party at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. WP:3RR has already been violated in spirit, and more reverts are likely to be interpreted as crossing the bright line. Please do not revert again, ATTN: @HughD: @Springee: @CZmarlin: @Arthur Rubin:. Let somebody else decide and then let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, a 5:4 deadlock means there is not consensus for inclusion. Certainly if we are going to conclude that exact text must be added to the article we better have a strong consensus. That doesn't mean we can't try to address issues and move forward but it does mean the proposal as stated (ie an exact paragraph) is rejected. Hugh previously was pushing for inclusion of both quality and recall material. The previous proposals were largely rejected due to WIEGHT issues associated with the recalls being pushed. Due not that Hugh was reported and warned for a 3RR violation associated with those changes. Regardless, this time he is only pushing for quality report material which I'm not opposed to including but I do oppose the way he wants to include it. I suspect many of the objectors feel the same way. I think the correct next step is close this discussion and then open a talk section regarding how and what to include. Springee (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is not voting, reasons are more important than counts of positions, and neutrality with respect to reliable sources is in dispute. Additional, broadened community participation and a formal close by an uninvolved administrator are strongly indicated. Again. content summarizing coverage of recalls in noteworthy reliable sources is not proposed here; please help us all focus on the current proposal in this thread WP:FOC. Thank you. Hugh (talk)
Yes, consensus is not voting. But when you ask to include exact text, then we should have a very high bar for inclusion. People who say the material should be included in general (and I don't oppose general inclusion) don't necessarily support your exact statements. Based on the reading of the response, you are the only editor who supports including your exact quote. Springee (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support These are reliable and respectable sources which are due inclusion per NPOV. As for where, I suggest within the "product line" section. This is not to say the text is perfect and unalterable. There may be more positive views in reliable sources that editors may wish to add. There is simply no call for stonewalling this addition, though. Rhoark (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with all of what Rhoark said immediately above. I also disagree with the characterization of the text or sources proposed as "polemical" - that is simply not the case. Neutrality 03:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment HughD's addition to his opening comment is an absurd misinterpretation of policy. Negative comments should be included, provided the sources are reliable for those comments, and it does not constitute undue weight. Both of these assertions are in question. (Furthermore, editing his comment makes some of the replies inappropriate, which is a clear violation of talk page guidelines, if not WP:NPA.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with a minor change. Remove the "at least" from the first sentence, as this implies that they were criticized before the late 1990s and we have no sources stating that. Otherwise, this is reliably sourced and important for neutrality. ~ Rob 20:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Where should quality survey type information go in the article

As I said above, I think a good argument can be made for including quality survey information in the Chrysler article. The above RfC is problematic because it asks editors to approve an exact text and doesn't state where it should be added. I'm starting this section to ask where we should add such material in the current article structure. I'm not proposing any text at the moment but I'm presuming that would also be discussed here. I would think the material should live under the "United States sales" subheading. I would leave Fiat brand information out of the discussion and only consider FCA's US brands. Material covering Fiat (and perhaps Ferrari) should be under . Springee (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said any such thing. The RfC says nothing about "exact text". You made that up. The question was "Should the following content be added to the article?" If there is consensus to add the content, that in no way repeals the basic fact that anyone can edit Misplaced Pages. Consensus can change. Any content can and will be improved by subsequent edits. Why on Earth can't editors reach a consensus about adding some content without making any determination about where the content is going to go? As with the silly idea that all content must be perfectly neutral before it can be added to any article, this idea would paralyze collaborative editing. Of course a formal decision can be reached to support taking some action, while leaving the details of how or where undecided. There doesn't need to be a formal directive for how each and every thing must be done.

The only thing that is problematic is taking a simple question about adding some stuff on an article -- something people do thousands of times a day -- and over-dramatizing it into some sort of grave, irrevocable, world-altering decision. Possibly due to obsessive Wikihounding of the person who proposed the RfC? I'm not the first editor to suggest that a little personal distance would help the situation, and give a little needed perspective. I don't think I'll be the last. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


OK, rather than messing around with the RfC, I've taken the BOLD step of adding quality information to the article. I'm certain it will not make everyone happy but it's a start. The length of the material being proposed above was UNDUE. We should be careful with regards to simply reporting the news sources that simply requote CR and JDP year after year as WP is WP:NOTNEWS. We also should be careful because there are sources that question the validity of CR and JDP's methods. That isn't to say that their impact on car buyers isn't real. However, what ever we want to include it really needs to be encyclopedic. Please note that for the article edit I used sources from the above RfC. Ultimately I think we should find some source that has complied or discusses long term trends in quality. Including, for example, a 2012 article that says CR put Chrysler products below average in 2012 is basically reporting news. Doing that 20 times is just repeating the news 20 times which doesn't address WP:NOTNEWS. We need to find a reliable source that describes the long term trend. Springee (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Nope, once again, WP:NOTNEWS says no such thing. If you were to want to write a new article about each new CR or JDP headline, that would be proscribed by NOTNEWS. But what it says is, "...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information".

Getting back to the article's subject itself, and the public's low estimation of Chrysler's quality, we need to trace the history of Lee Iacocca introducing the industry's first 5 year/50,000 mile warranty as both a way to address the perceived low quality, and a top-down goad to force the company's divisions to improve quality or face expensive warranty repairs. Next Chrysler upped the ante to a 7 year warranty, again, because quality was a driving concern, sometimes real, sometimes only perceived. And then a lifetime warranty. It is a complicated story. Nitpicking about the imperfections of CR or JDP misses the forest for the trees, and is off topic. We have articles on Consumer Reports and JD Power for anyone who wishes to delve deeper into those questions. Your addition is a start but there is much more to be added. Some of it will not reflect well on Chrysler, but that is allowed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Consumer Reports issues it's ratings every year. A number of sources re-report the information each year. As an individual data point the 2014 results are not encyclopedic. They are subject to the NOTNEWS clause. If we present 20 years of the material then we have flooded the article with "notnews". If we show the twenty years then say Chrysler has had poor CR results for 20 years that might be OR depending on how the conclusion is stated. Instead what we should do is find an article or several that talk about the long term quality trends. Even then we need to be careful about weight given the age of the company and scope of the article. I think we are at least on the same page that the RfC proposed text doesn't fly as is and we should be seeking more comprehensive sources for this topic. Springee (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I could cite hundreds of articles that use annual, monthly and even daily data. I could cite many guidelines that encourage adding these sorts of rankings, reports, and ratings, such as WP:PEACOCK. Many GAs and FAs have weather and climate data of this sort. Financial data is published in annual reports, which CZMarlin above said, "Financial data is critical to the firm, its investors, and all other stakeholders such as suppliers, employees, and the communities in which it has operations. The brief financial condition information allows readers to know how viable it is, how it balances profit with costs, as well as how it measures up to other companies." And so on.

Where, precisely, in WP:NOTNEWS does it say anything even remotely similar to your claim: "Consumer Reports issues it's ratings every year. A number of sources re-report the information each year. As an individual data point the 2014 results are not encyclopedic."? Where does it say that?

Here, let's just quote the entire thing:

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper

See also: Misplaced Pages:Notability (events)

As Misplaced Pages is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are not:

  1. Original reporting. Misplaced Pages should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Misplaced Pages does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Misplaced Pages does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Misplaced Pages is also not written in news style.
  2. News reports. Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Misplaced Pages may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
  3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
  4. A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.
Exactly where in the above guideline to you see anything that bans mention of Consumer Reports, JD Power and other similar rankings and statistics? It does not say what you claim it says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Categories: