User talk:Dainase

Your edits to Jaguar and BMC

"Jaguar to join up with B.M.C.
£18m deal to strengthen front against Detroit.

Under a jointly agreed £18,200,000 deal announced last night the Jaguar group of companies and the British Motor Corporation are to merge. In financial terms it is a takeover of Sir William Lyons's Coventry company by Sir George Harriman's Longbridge giant, the result of which will be a new group comprising Jaguar, BMC and Pressed Steel-Fisher. . . ."
see: Jaguars to join up with B.M.C. from our motoring correspondent. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Jul 12, 1966; pg. 1; Issue 56681. This reference was provided.
It is a common ploy to call a takeover (purchase) a merger to placate supporters of the target business.
Mind if I change your edits back? Eddaido (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree with this. The facts are that Lyons and Harriman agreed to merge the two companies and stated this at the press conference and in subsequent written comments. What a journalist may have interpreted from the announcement is merely their conjecture and is not relevant to what took place.

You can sign your messages by adding four tildes at the end. This is a tilde ~ and its key is just below the escape key. When you Save your contribution the four tildes miraculously turn into a signature for you together with the date and time that you saved it.

Prefixing your response with a colon insets a reply making it easier for others to read quickly.

Clearly you will object if I change your edits to how they were. But this is an encyclopedia and it should contain facts rather than PR spin. You refer to a biography of William Lyons which is unlikely to provide a true and fair view of the transaction which was, quite simply, forced upon Lyons. I have a copy (2nd edition printed August 1985) of Jaguar the definitive history of a great British car by Andrew Whyte (foreword by Sir William Lyons).

In this book with WL's stamp of approval the "merger" takes place in the non-existent space between chapters 13 and 14. 13 ends with a list of executives and Jaguar subsidiaries at the time. 14 begins with the early post "merger" days.

Might it have been that the foreword was withheld until a chapter covering the subject of our discussion was removed? Your thoughts? Thanks,Eddaido (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Eddaido,

You are quite right that an encyclopedia should contain facts, which in this case were that the two companies agreed to a merger. With both companies listed any announcement had to be factually correct - this is not 'spin' as you call it but a legal requirement. You should also be aware that the term was used elsewhere, such as Lyons letter to BMC's accountants where he clearly states the discussions taking place as a merger, and in a post agreement letter to suppliers, where the same term is again used. To ignore all this in favour of the opinion of a journalist, writing in this case from some considerable distance, would be factually incorrect.

Essentially, to replace the documented agreement between the two heads of the companies with the opnion of a journalist would be against the first principle of an encyclopedia, which you rightly identified earlier.

Kind regards,

DainaseDainase (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly greeting. Now, about "What a journalist may have interpreted from the announcement is merely their conjecture and is not relevant to what took place." (I quote you from above)
The "journalist" being quoted is not of the usual kind and is focussed entirely and wholly on what is happening, not on the choice of words for the chairmen's statement. He/she is reporting reality not reporting appearances. If that kind got muddled between reality and spin they'd be fired. He/she has that job to get people to buy their paper to find out what is really happening in the financial world. Would this be called in-depth reporting?

1. Can you account for the subject of our discussion being, it appears, so completely expunged from a book (that is all about him and his business) which has been given Lyons' approval? See above — (foreword by Sir William Lyons I regard as a seal of approval on an "authorised" history)

2. I can see you are passionate in your assertions. Would you please provide proper references for your statements (where I can see the truth of these assertions for myself and so can everyone else) because then I can better understand what you believe is being said by Harriman and Lyons.

3. There is one more thing. Would you please very briefly describe on this page your understanding of the meaning of merger as used at the beginning of your last message above. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Eddaido,

Thank you for your reply.

I cannot give any help to your comment of what you believe to be missing content in a book by Andrew Whyte. Sadly, neither can the author as he sadly passed away in the late Eighties. I should point out however that Sir William died in February 1985 and your edition was published 6 months later. Even if Sir William had asked for this to be removed – which I find doubtful at best – there was ample time for this alleged missing content to be added in this or any future edition. I would recommend to you the JDHT official biography of Sir William Lyons by Philip Porter and Paul Skilleter, from where the references regarding the merger of Jaguar and BMC are sourced and which was first published in 2001.

To once again repeat your assertion that an encyclopaedia should be a factual account, a journalist is free to interpret a press release, quote or any other scenario and express their opinion as they see fit. If their editor sees fit to do so then their article will appear in print; that does not make it ipso facto. There is a simple point that George Harriman and Sir William Lyons agreed to merge the two companies and stated so in writing. Disregarding this point, made in writing by the two leaders of their respective companies at the time would be at odds with your belief that Wikipedia should be factual and as such it would be better to state the known points as they are. If a reader wishes to draw an opinion from the information provided then that – like the journalist – is purely for them to do so.

Kind regards,

Dainase (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)