This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HughD (talk | contribs) at 06:27, 4 March 2016 (→Facts or legalities?: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:27, 4 March 2016 by HughD (talk | contribs) (→Facts or legalities?: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | California Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Law Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
POV
this page doesn't seem to have a neutral POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.192.78 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Outcome?
A collection of many details. But it lacks the main point: Wow did the court decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.77.235 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Facts section
I haven't edited a legal article before, so I may have made a mistake, but two of the Facts in the facts section were blatantly misleading and wrong, respectively. Almost all of Pinto's domestic competitors used the same fuel tank placement, and the vega, at least, had an even less structural bumper. If the Facts section is supposed to list the "Facts" as presented in the case rather than the truth then I may have made a mistake. Greglocock (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Under cross-examination, one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution—an automobile-safety consultant named Byron Bloch—conceded the point. In “Reckless Homicide?,” Strobel writes:
- Bloch agreed that the American Motors Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega, and Dodge Colt had their gas tanks behind the axle; that those cars had essentially the same bumpers (“I would say that they were all bad,” Bloch said); that the Vega had no body rails at all; that all four cars had somewhat similar distances from the tank to the rear bumper; that all of them had at least some sharp objects near the tank; and that the thickness of the gas tank metal on the Pinto was in the upper one-third of other 1973 (era) cars.
- This article contains a number of factual errors as well as court testimony reported as fact. Basically it needs help. Springee (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Facts or legalities?
As explained above, many of the statements of fact in Grimshaw are wrong, so should we continue to promulgate them? HughD seems keen to do so. I'd be quite happy if the wording was changed so that it said "the prosecution claimed that...", rather than the current obviously incorrect and easily disproved wording. Greglocock (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would be fine with that. WP has said that primary sources and things like trial transcripts should not be treated as a RS for fact. Certainly this article can stand to have a number of secondary sources added. HughD is doing due diligence as far as looking into WP standards for discussing legal cases. That should be helpful information. Springee (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is not an article about the Pinto, it is an article about a court case. The appellate court opinion is not a trail transcript, or testimony at trial, it is a record of what the court found. The facts in this Misplaced Pages article, stated in the form "The court found..." are obviously verifiable, neutral, and true. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)