Talk:SUV/Archive 1

With the exception of the line about SUVs being buglies (which I didn't add, but didn't delete), I don't see a whole lot of bias difference between your rewrite of SUV and my version. I suppose there was the word rationalize in my write-up, but other than that I find your summary, frankly, insulting and wrong. --Belltower

Then you are easily insulted. I don't see what you find wrong about it, though. Maybe you would care to explain. If you want me to explain why I rewrote it as I did, I can do that too. --Larry Sanger

Your rewrite is fine; it just isn't significantly different in content. Saying "this is horribly biased" and then re-using 95% of it seems incongruous. Having been on the internet for 15 years, I merely note (but don't care about) things I consider insulting... others might not be so thick-skinned. --Belltower

Huge bias can be added, or removed, by small changes. In newspapers, for instance, bias is often very subtle, conveyed by the addition of a half-dozen words here and there, and the omission of some relevant fact that could be stated in one sentence--that sort of thing. What you did in the original article is essentially write an argument (admittedly, supported :-) ) against the use of sports utility vehicles. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. I think the article still has that problem, actually, but I'm not sure what do about it. --LMS

---

I agree with Belltower. The many negative comments of the SUV are all true. LMS may find the article bias because there was nothing good about somegood that the American fell in love with, but that is just the truth in my opinion. If anyone can add some good comments about the SUV, the article may be balanced a bit. But I think that would not be a easy task. A friend of mine was involved in a rollover accident when the SUV first came out couple years ago. His wife was badly hurt and he swore he would not drive a SUV again. By the way, he was a good driver. His car was rolled over just because he was trying to dodge another car to avoid an accident.

Since most folks buy an SUV for (let's face it) image reasons (lumped with a few rationalizations), it may be hard to not seem biased against them. I added a bit about their towing ability, which is another reason people buy SUVs. We might even add a bit about more recent Minivan designs and marketing, which have tried to present a less-stodgy image for those vehicles. --Belltower

---

I have no problems whatsoever with including a lot of information in the article that makes it sound as if SUVs are bad vehicles to own. I do have problems with articles that actually seem to draw conclusions to this effect, though. Look, the point of the article is not advocacy. We aren't in the business of trying to convince people that SUVs are bad--even if they are, and even if an article that includes many relevant facts about them will lead many to conclude that they are. But people should be left to draw that conclusion for themselves. --LMS