Talk:BMW

BMW History - 1959 to 1995 period is empty !!

Almost thirty years including first export of cars, etc, is not covered. Someone should update this, as it's pretty bad. Sadly, I don't know enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.43.245 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of BMW logo "has all changed in the last year"

• Williams, Stephen (7 January 2010), "BMW Roundel: Not Born From Planes", The New York Times, retrieved 2010-01-08

Article should probably be updated; apparently BMW museum has come upon documents recently that prove the 1917 design was solely a version of the colors, and the propeller connection wasn't made until 1929. At least, that seems to be the official BMW version now. --Dbratland (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Peskett, Karl (5 August 2011), BMW reveals the origin of its logo in video form, retrieved 2011-12-29

Based on this video from BMW it's clear that BMW has concretely identified its logo as being a modification of the Rapp logo. Any association with an airplane propeller has to be a later addition to the BMW lore, and should be removed as the inspiration of the logo. ShinySteelRobot (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazi connections

I have made this section smaller due to undue weight, this is not a BMW bashing witch hunt article, and neither is it a Quandt article - considering what BMW are notable for, you should not devote so much of the article to whining about the Nazis, otherwise any article relating to Germany could have an extensive whining Nazi past section. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit. If you scroll up you can see this has been discussed more than once, and the undue weight argument has failed to win consensus. It's too bad those who want to reduce or eliminate the Nazi section want to edit anonymously. It's impossible to tell if this is three editors or one, but that's not my problem.

My advice would be to create an account and/or to then make a proposal here on the talk page to refactor the Nazi section. The sense I get is that most editors don't see undue weight here, and your best bet would be to come armed with numerous good sources that support the argument to remove material in question. Or just let it go; it really is a small part of a big article. --Dbratland (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

just letting it go is probably the wise choice, removing cited information when there are no BLP issues is always hard, I don't agree with the amount of space taken up by that section, but if people take the time to read it they will realise the extent of BMW's Nazi past - afterall it is not as if BMW was making Zyklon B or running death camps. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This danish freedom fighter section in the company history is rediculous. There might have been thousands of claims against BMW after the war, it´s plain cherry picking to just list one in detail in a brief summary, that doesn´t even try to cover the whole history. There is a separate article for this purpose, namely the history of BMW. I seriously doubt that a random reader of this article would appreciate such trivial remarks. Let´s try to make this article coherent. I want this article to explain the history of BMW, not the nazi past of Quandt family. Instead, there should be a separate article for that purpose. My suggestion for the structure of this article is, that is should cover the foundation, start up of the different branches, involvement in WWII production (what type of stuff it produced and that slave labour was used) and the history after WWII. If the history section consists of, say 5 paragraphs, I´d say one paragraph dedicated for this purpose is definitely the ceiling. The history from 60´s onwards is much more related to the current business. (Villevav (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

I agree that this content is of tenuous relevance to this article. Günther Quandt would be a more appropriate article. Letdorf (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

See also this archived discussion, where another user pointed out Wikipedia:Coatrack. Is the artilce about BMW or Günther Quandt? Let's say the current CEO of XYZ Enterprises was prosecuted for a crime (e.g. financial fraud) during the 1970s, would that mean that half of the history section of the "XYZ Enterprises" article should be devoted to discussion about the CEO's fraudulent behaviour? I would say no, as the article is about the company, not the unrelated activities of its employees.

Companies tend to work with the respective governments of the day otherwise they would not be in business for much longer. This applies regardless of whether people or other countries find the activities of the government objectionable (take a look at all the Western companies operating in China right now, they do everything they can to comply with the regulations in that country). Almost every major German company operating at the time would have had some Nazi connections as this was required by German law. For the companies involved it was a choice of compliance or perish. Like it or not, ethical compliance is not the primary goal for most corporations. The focus should shift away from Quandt towards the role of BMW as a company in regards to compliance with the laws in place from 1933–1945. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The section in question is hardly relevant to this article. The sole link to BMW is that Quandt became a shareholder, 15 years after WWII. The remainder of the section is about the Quandt family, it has nothing to do with BMW. --Sable232 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now all that the article say in relation to the Nazis is that BMW did a super-great job building super-special jet fighters for the Luftwaffe so that the Germans could keep killing RAF fighters and keep fighting for Hitler and so on-- good for them, right, what clever little Germans they are.

So I guess all you guys who wanted to whitewash that part of the article did a pretty great job, but, I'm pretty suspicious of the whole thing now. I mean, now, all it does is say how GOOD they were and how CLEVER-- like we should DEFEND their work with Hitler, you know.

And I'm not sure that that's the appropriate stance to take on this important issue.

Like, *what* did the article use to say? What did it use to say?

What did they do that was so bad, that, now we can't hear about it anymore?

Did they use slave labor, for example?

Is that what they did that we need to cover up? Did they use slave labor?

If they were *so good* that they didn't use slave labor, then, maybe we should mention that. Or, if they *did* use slave labor, then, maybe we should explain that they supported Hitler and the Nazis, and, not just as a CHARITY EVENT, but, because they wanted some slaves to put to work building cars and everything, right.

After all, as the whitewashers have implied, it was pretty common for Germans to be Nazi fascists who loved Hitler, and, yeah, maybe this is *relevant* in terms of.... business ethics, maybe? Some business books say that ethics are important-- business ethics. And I guess that whether or not you think that Hitler is a fucking fascist or not is an important part of that.

Or else we can just revert to pro-Nazi apologetics: all Germans were Nazis, and, therefore, because all Germans did that, *because that's the way that Germans acted*, it must have been okay, because it just is, because Germans are.... always okay!*

And, you know, since we know that it's not okay, let's just not talk about it, right.

But, why don't we talk about this? No need to get *mealy-mouthed and vague*, let's talk about specifics.

As good Germans, BMW happily compiled with all the Nazi laws that were in place during Hitler's cheerful administration of 1933-1945.

And we'd expect nothing less from them, right. After all, this is apparently the way that Germans normally behave, there's almost no need to mention it *every* time that Germans were fascist criminals, since they were really *all* like that, huh, whitewashers?

BMW compiled with Hitler's laws for twelve years.

Let's talk about specifics.

What does that mean.

What did they do.

!

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We can write

BMW's major shareholding family had 50,000 forced labourers during WWII, these are major war crimes.

BMW admits ‘regret’ over using Nazi slave labor during WWII, a full investigation is done by family request and is revealed. this page needs some updates, main introduction and Wehrmacht and Nazi ties alinea, early Nazi supporters on a IG Farben scale. Who is the admin, or is there a group connected to German History, WWII slave labor. I can write the text myself if we all agree now? Anyone able to update the information I found, subject Guenther Quandt involved in the Nazi movement, and the First General Director Franz Josef Popp of BMW AG from 1922 to 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

G Power and Alpina bought by BMW

This is clearly a hoax. Good riddance.

It also serves as an example of why unsourced additions should be reverted immediately, especially if they contain anything but utterly commonplace, perfectly logical and well-known facts. But buying two little accessories companies on the same date, for € 1.3 billion and € 2.7 billion, with not an iota of news and no press releases, is obviously bullshit. --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to model line up display

I have simplified the list of current BMWs.

It is far too congested and if someone wanted to find a quick link to all of the BMWs it is far more easier to do it now than before where you had to read three paragraphs. It has worked well on Mercedes-Benz for years now. Wjs.william (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The main tool Wikipedia has for that purpose is categories, in this case, Category:BMW vehicles. There is also a page called List of BMW vehicles for anyone who wants the same information in a somewhat different format. Taking the same information, and putting it into yet a third format on BMW is not helpful. --Dbratland (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And on the bottom of the page is the same links to BMW cars formatted in another way, in a timeline. If a reader can't find the BMW they want in the category, the list, or the timeline, not to mention the search engine, there's no helping them. --Dbratland (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with you putting a short list in the article as it complements the existing prose, but in my opinion the prose is much more useful and should stay and agree with others (like me) who have reinstated it following your repeated deletion. However, I did rework the list (assuming it is going to stay) to use more conventional formatting and a single link on each line. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I just had used it and I thought that it was too cluttered if you just wanted to quickly find a model. Looks much better now.Wjs.william (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Largest luxury car maker claim

I have twice removed the claim in the intro that BMW is the largest luxury car manufacturer - the first time it was uncited, the second time it was cited but with nothing more than a passing reference in an article about a different company. I have issues with these "largest" claims. Firstly by what measure is the largest claim being made? i.e. by units produced, by revenue? What portion of BMW's vehicles can be classed as luxury cars? Certainly the 1 series and the MINI aren't, nor are their bikes which make up a proportion of their revenue. I think the claim is so riddled with potential pitfalls that it is best to omit it unless really clear comparison criteria and supporting data can be produced. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is pretty definitive. Gr1st (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't though. I does separate MINI and Rolls Royce, but does not make any other model distinctions. I would challenge anyone who says that the 1 series is a luxury vehicle. "Luxury" is a purely subject term and as such I think it should be avoided when making claims of "biggest in the world". By all means include data on BMW's sales - that is a great reference, and even compare them with its competitors, but I'd prefer if it was left at that.--Biker Biker (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC) (EDIT of course I meant "subjective term" not "subject term". --Biker Biker (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

I agree the business week article is insufficient. Looking at the 2008 production numbers at OICA [23], it's not clear at all whether Mercedes or BMW makes more cars -- subtracting the Minis and the Smart Cars, retrospectively -- you end up with about the same number for each, in the neighborhood of 1 to 1.2 million. Subtract the non-luxury cars from the remainder and its anybody's guess which one comes out ahead. And that was in 2008, and a lot has changed since then. The top 5 car makers, Toyota, GM, VW, Ford and Honda, each made 3 to 5 times as many cars as BMW, and any one of them could have made more than the 1 to 1.2 million (theoretically) luxury cars as BMW.

So what data we have suggests its too close to call without very definite numbers. And I see no urgent need to have any superlative about the top luxury car maker without strong support -- how does it really make the article better, anyway? --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And I did not even think of BMW as a luxury car. I have tried a BMW, that was like driving a dodgem car. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up of Bimmer and Beemer?

Any explanation for deleting this paragraph? It's well sourced and relevant. "Clean up" doesn't tell us much. --Dbratland (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Porm industry, marc williams

Appears that the page has been hijacked. Founder is inexplicably a "marc williams," and the company was established in 19177777777777777777777?

I can't help right now, but entire article might need a readover. Luckily, looks like the hijacker doesn't like to use capital letters.

Somebody help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Arts section addition

BMW Guggenheim Lab is to be a multidisciplinary exhibition, forum, think tank, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Year of establishment

The year of establishment in this article could not be right(in box). If you switch to the german version of this article you could see that it have another foundation date: 7. März/March 1916 I think this should be changed because as Germans they better know when one of their companies was founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.186.196 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

According to BMW's own website: 1917.[24] BFW was formed in 1916. Warren (talk)

Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH was BMW as we know them today, 1912, the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke was the same as company as Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH. Official corporate information from this German Car builders is not the truth. They try to remove that NAZI Gustav Otto from official sources, very bad people. A Nazy founded BMW, that's why they need to remove that here, and on their official Marketing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone can't make a good BMW history site, I need to do it myself, you simply can't remove that the company is founded by a Nazi member in 1912. Gustav Otto has a page himself on wiki too.

A bad image

That picture at the box in this article is bad - I think we all know what that picture is the Jon Woods one, but it's not related to the BMW article at all. I think a removing this unrelated picture. --Jason 07:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason sanez (talk • contribs)

'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal

Dear all,

I am currently proposing this new WikiProject would have the primary aim of creating and developing a page for each model (both old and new) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. This would enable a highly valuable resource to be for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself to be created, where extensive information about specifications, development, modifications and the history behind could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject is not only being promoted to present editors who are currently active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course of a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Please visit the project proposal page, in order to see more details of the project and to join. Any questions or queries can be posted either on the proposal page, or I can be contacted directly on my talk page.

Many thanks and any help from fellow enthusiasts on this project would be greatly appreciated.

DAFMM (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Theft using OBD

Is it just me or does this section seem woefully out of place and just odd given the overall content and context of the article?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It got a lot of press footage in the UK. I don't think it needs its own section, but the information is nevertheless useful and relevant IMO. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember it getting press in the US as well. I mainly just think its out of place in the article. Is it significant (WP Notable) enough that it deserves its own article?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper, but...

Hi Folks, Let me start by saying that although I'm an auto enthusiast, I wouldn't say that BMW vehicles do or do not have any special interest for me (OK, the 850 series were just plain cool, but that's about the extent of my fan interest). That said, there appears to be 2 items that are more "current events" than encyclopedic information. The OBD theft section, if nothing else just appears to be out of place in the article, and the "I'd rather cry in a BMW" (although strange that it has its own article) link in the "See also" just seems completely out of character and context for the rest of the article. The article does not have a "BMW in popular culture" section and maybe it needs one. This doesn't resolve what to do with the OBD section, but maybe someone's suggestion will. What are your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A pop culture section is a dumping ground for lazy editors. The OBD stuff should be merged up into a more appropriate section of the article. The thing that makes it hard to merge up is the question, "How does this affect BMW?" Were sales harmed? Were cars redesigned? If it had not effect, then it is of no importance and should just be deleted rather than consigned to a pop culture dumping ground. I would rather cry in a BMW isn't really about BMW, it's about China. I'd lean towards removing it from the See also section if it has had no effect or influence on BMW itself. If it is important to the BMW community/culture of China, then move it to the Community section. Possibly broaden "community" by renaming it "culture". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove S1000RR from Motorsport victories, add Isle of Man TT and land speed records

The S1000RR Superbike racer is nice and all, but the Motorsport section is a roster of victories and championships, isn't it? Shouldn't that be removed until something substantial is achieved? In its place, shouldn't things like IOM victories be listed? BMW once dominated the 500 cc sidecars, for example. Similarly, the 1930-1937 Motorcycle land-speed records were significant and should be listed here. I think there were other motorcycle championships in the early period as well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Supercars/Concept Cars

I'm not a car guy, but when I am interested in cars I want to see their super cars and concepts cars. Why is there no mention of that? I know for a fact BMW has an i8 concept car that was introduced at a car show somewhere, why isn't that on this page?

StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

Changes to current models should include the updated lineup

Before:

1 Series (E81) (2004–present) Coupe and convertible
3 Series (E93) (2007–present) convertible
7 Series (F01) (2008–present) Sedan
5 Series (F10) (2009–present) Sedan, wagon
6 Series (F12) (2010–present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe
1 Series (F20) (2011–present) Hatchback
3 Series (F30) (2012–present) Sedan, wagon
4 Series (2014–present) Coupe
3 Series Gran Turismo (2013–present) Progressive Activity Sedan
5 Series Gran Turismo (2009–present) Progressive Activity Sedan
BMW i3 (To be launched 2014) Sedan
X1 (2009–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X3 (F25) (2010–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X5 (E70) (2006–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X6 (E71) (2008–present) Sports Activity Coupe
Z4 (E89) (2009–present) Sports Roadster

After:
1 Series (F20) (2011–present) Hatchback
2 Series (F22) (2013-present) Coupe and convertible
3 Series (F30) (2012-present) Sedan and wagon
4 Series (F32) (2014-present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe
5 Series (F10) (2009–present) Sedan, wagon
6 Series (F12) (2010–present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe
7 Series (F01) (2008–present) Sedan
3 Series Gran Turismo (2013–present) Progressive Activity Sedan
5 Series Gran Turismo (2009–present) Progressive Activity Sedan
BMW i3 (i1) (2013-present) Sedan
BMW i8 (i12) (2013-present) Sports Car
X1 (2009–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X3 (F25) (2010–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X4 (F26) (2014-present) Sports Activity Coupe
X5 (F15) (2013-present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)
X6 (E71) (2008–present) Sports Activity Coupe
Z4 (E89) (2009–present) Sports Roadster

On a side note, under M Models the M3/M4 start production in 2014 not 2013.

A.a.tawab (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

AG

What does the AG in the name mean? The page doesn't say, or link to an article that tells what this means. I think to U.S. readers this would not be known, my guess is that it is like Private company limited by shares Limited, Ltd., or Incorporation_(business), Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.140.96 (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a US-only project. AG stands for "Aktiengesellschaft", as alluded to in the infobox; it is indeed a company owned by shareholders, but isn't strictly a PLC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't allude to things, we make it obvious. Fixed now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ag is just Aktiengesellschaft, a corporation limited by share ownership, and is documented under AG on wiki too already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

BMW = Bayrische Motoren Werke = Bavarian Motor Factories/Plants

Ein Werk = a work. yes. but a Motorenwerk isn't motor works, it is a motor factory.

So, BMW = Bavarian Motor Plants or Bavarian Motor Factories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.116.58 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A "works" in English already means factory or plant.[25][26] Werke doesn't need to be further translated beyond "works". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Motor werke is just a engine workshop, you can't translate to simplified US Noth American language at all, using 2 words for it is good, the enige workshop factory is good too, better? I think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In English 'motor' has been a common metonym for their entire vehicle for a century. This is why nobody is confused by words like 'motorist'. Regardless, you can't expect to see a different translation here than you find in widely accepted sources. If you have a better source that disputes the standard translation, that might make a difference, but otherwise I'd let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Luxury only?

BMW doesn't only make luxury cars, nor are all their motorcycles "luxury" bikes. And what are we to make of the phrase, "a German luxury automobile, motorcycle and engine manufacturing company founded in 1916." They make luxury cars, luxury motorcycles, and luxury engines? What is a luxury engine? Is their electric car a luxury car? Their smaller motorcycles and scooters are not "luxury" motorcycles. The other problem here is WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia articles are not only about the subject today; they're about the whole history of the subject, which includes many diverse kinds of products, not just BMW's recent high-end position in the export market. And how come the first paragraph of the lead has to say they're a luxury automaker, and then again in the second paragraph we have to repeat that they're one of the big 3 German luxury automakers. What's driving this need to beat this horse? What's next? putting luxury in the article title?

I'd look for something quantifiable if you want to characterize where BMW fits into the market, or else leave it out of the lead and explain in depth in the body of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, and I've reverted the BOLD edit. It doesn't make grammatical sense, and nor is it accurate. Vehicles such as the Isetta and Dixi cannot be remotely construed as luxury cars; nor, realistically, can the 1-Series or the Mini. The current vehicles are generally premium ones, but I doubt anything other than the 7-Series could be 100% considered to be a luxury car – and even then, that isn't how BMW generally market things anyway (sporty executive saloon is more their style). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

luxury cars, a BMW 3 is even for EU standard small, not any luxury at all if you buy the cheap step-in model, Spartan we call that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Production statistics need correction or clarification.

Article shows 2013 worldwide production of BMW vehicles as 1,655,138 units but 2013 sales in China as 1,699,835 units. How can sales in China be greater than production in the entire world? Can someone with knowledge of the topic please clarify. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlefty (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 July 2015‎

"China sales" is a heading under "Worldwide sales". The China number is 415,200. "Annual production" is a new heading, lower down than China but not under the China section. Scroll up and look at the table of contents. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on BMW. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425064421/http://www.bmweducation.co.uk/coFacts/view.asp?docID=185 to http://www.bmweducation.co.uk/cofacts/view.asp?docid=185
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516025402/http://annual-report.bmwgroup.com:80/2010/gb/files/pdf/en/BMW_Group_AR2010.pdf to http://annual-report.bmwgroup.com/2010/gb/files/pdf/en/BMW_Group_AR2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100601010721/http://www.dakar.com/2009/DAK/presentation/docs/histo_1979_2007_us.pdf to http://www.dakar.com/2009/DAK/presentation/docs/histo_1979_2007_us.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100612010703/http://www.sportbusiness.com:80/news/176850/bmw-extends-sponsorship-of-wentworth-pga-event to http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/176850/bmw-extends-sponsorship-of-wentworth-pga-event
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130728114510/http://www.driftuniversity.com:80/why-wait-for-spring-lease-it-now/ to http://www.driftuniversity.com/why-wait-for-spring-lease-it-now/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation

This article needs revising by someone who understands that in English one cannot just splice sentences together with commas. Anothernogginthenog (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

who is the author of this article?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

who is the author for this article as i am doing a research paper on BMW and cannot find the author so i cannot citate this document which this is my main source of information.24.35.178.178 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

Please change the "citation needed" after this sentence {"It is the first global guide to private and publicly accessible collections of contemporary art worldwide."} to the following citation:

Blondieesquire (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

 Done--Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

BMW history - 1945 to 1958

I just wanted to point out that the history of BMW from 1945 to 1958 is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyboza (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

False claim: BMW as sponsor of german soccer club Eintracht Frankfurt.

BMW AG currently does not engage in any sponsorship of soccer clubs. The mistake was probably made because one of the sponsors of Eintracht Frankfurt is the Euler Group, one of BMW's largest dealers in Germany. The following article should clarify this: http://www.eintracht.de/news/artikel/bmw-euler-wird-erneut-automobil-partner-von-eintracht-frankfurt-56143/

Could someone please remove the false claim?

Thank you!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714170755/http://www.newbmwseries.com/2009/05/bmw-5-series-gran-turismo/ to http://www.newbmwseries.com/2009/05/bmw-5-series-gran-turismo/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bmw.com.au/com/en/insights/technology/connecteddrive/2013/driver_assistance/intelligent_parking.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bmw.co.za/products/automobiles/bmw_insights/history.asp

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong translation

The German name Bayerische Motoren Werke is grammatically incorrect; it does not make any sense (and in general, names cannot be translated). This means that the English translation "Bavarian Motor Works" is wrong. Therefore, I recommend that someone removes it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Message from 89.204.130.23: The source cited does not say that BMW translates into English as Bavarian Motor Works. It says that Rapp Motor Works became Bavarian Motor Works. That is a difference.

BMW is a name and you don't translate names.

Bayerische Motoren Werke is grammatically incorrect and you can't translate it. It means something like Bavarian Engines Works or Bavarian Engines, thou shallt work! This doesn't make much sense to me. Bavarian Motor Woek would mean Bayerische Motorenwerke, that's just not the name of the company. While the pronounciation is similar, it is still different.

I don't agree that names can't be translated as a blanket rule. And despite the grammatical quirks of the original German name, I think it is helpful to have a translation of the words available for English readers. Translation is rarely a literal process! Therefore I am in favour of retaining the text. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We're not saying the name of BMW in English is Bayerische Motoren Werke. We're saying those words translate to Bavarian Motor Works, and we have numerous sources in English who use that 'translation', or perhaps 'rough translation', somewhat like a transliteration. Culturally, the understading of BMW translated this way is widespread. See Cleveland CycleWerks, or Bidgewater Motor Works, Way Motor Works, etc. Many sources say this [27][28][29][30]

I haven't seen any sources saying Bavarian Motor Works is incorrect. If we are shown one, we can mention that in the article, alongside the many English sources that accept this as the usual translation. Lacking those sources, it's fine the way it is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, you can't just translate it like that. These words don't translate into English as Bavarian Motor Works. I'm not saying that the name in English isn't Bavarian Motor Works, I'm saying that Bayerische Motoren Werke is a name and that it doesn't translate into English as Bavarian Motor Works. It simply can't since it's a name and doesn't make any sense in German. You can safely say that English books refer to BMW as Bavarian Motor Works, there is obvious evidence for that. However, I haven't seen any proof for the translation theory ('BMW translates into English as Bavarian Motor Works'). Several books refer to BMW as Bayerische Motorenwerke. While this is grammatically correct, it isn't their name. I think claiming that BMWs name is wrong is hardly anything someone could prove. But at least I would change the sentence to something like "English language literature refers to BMW as Bavarian Motor Works which translates into German as 'Bayerische Motorenwerke'." The 'translation' though is definitely wrong and none of the cited sources actually says that it translates into English as that, they just refer to it as that.

BMW does not use a hyphen between the number and Series

Since an IP changed the spelling of "BMW xyz Series", just for the record: BMW uses "BMW 3er, 5er, 7er" etc. Even the link on their site shows that:
http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrzeuge/5er.html Also, books prove that. (For instance: Hans J. Schneider: BMW 5er / Technik + Typen: Die Limousinen- und Touring-Modelle der BMW 5er-Baureihen. Schneider-Media UK LTD. 2007. ISBN 978-3768857895) And my own experience: I have never heard anyone saying "5 Series". --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That is true in German, but this is the English language wikipedia and BMW calls it "1 Series", etc in English. Here are examples: USA, UK. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen that; even though I don't live in Germany, I always refer to their German site. Apparently, models in the US are different from those in Germany. OK. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Theft using OBD

Hi @Andy Dingley:. According to this article, it's not just BMW that is affected (link). And while it is definitely an issue that should be covered by Wikipedia, I think it would be more appropriate to locate it in the OBD article or the articles for the affected models. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The article "Video: Key fob reprogrammers steal BMW in 3 mins"? Yes, clearly not just about BMWs.

There are problems with most of the sophisticated digital locks out there - we could usefully have an article on this. But using OBD is either a BMW-only route to this, or is being described as BMW-only by RS, and that's what limits us. Audi / VAG theft (which is equally problematic) doesn't seem to be using that route. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

While the subject of the article is BMWs, it also talks about Opel, Renault, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Toyota and Porsche. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

But they're being done through the radio, not via OBD. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for explaining, I didn't realise that.

I think the text is out of place in this article, and would be better located in the articles about the affected models. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on slang?

The content on slang terms like Bimmer and Beemer has been blanked several times over the years, with shifting rationales. I’ve asked before here on the talk page for an explanation but haven’t gotten much. It’s not too surprising that a sports or luxury brand would have a little snobbery or exclusionary shibboleths around it. The multiple sources from a broad range of different kinds of reliable sources are evidence that the topic is relevant. But it keeps getting blanked, possibly because some editors feel it’s embarrassing? Or they won’t accept that there isn’t a verifiably right or wrong answer to the Bimmer/Beemer cat fight?

Should we have an RfC to put this to rest? (Not asking if we should keep or delete it. I’m asking if you think an RfC would settle it). —Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Sorry for moving it to the BMW USA article when it apparently also applies to Canada (due to the first sentence, I thought it was USA only). An RfC sounds like a good idea here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see RfC below. This is the first time I've created an RfC, so apologies if I have made any mistakes. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wbcsd.org/about/members/members-list-region.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417153657/http://www.bmw.in/in/en/index_narrowband.html to http://www.bmw.in/in/en/index_narrowband.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bmw.co.za/products/automobiles/bmw_insights/history.asp

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC about bimmer and beemer slang

Should the text below (for context, it is located after "In the US, specialists have been at pains to prescribe that a distinction must be made between using Beemer exclusively to describe BMW motorcycles, and using Bimmer only to refer to BMW cars,") be removed from article?

in the manner of a "true aficionado" and avoid appearing to be "uninitiated." The Canadian Globe and Mail prefers Bimmer and calls Beemer a "yuppie abomination," while the Tacoma News Tribune says it is a distinction made by "auto snobs." Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts. An editor of Business Week was satisfied in 2003 that the question was resolved in favor of Bimmer by noting that a Google search yielded 10 times as many hits compared to Beemer.

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Keep some version of the text here. I hope we can all agree at the outset that this is not an up or down vote on whether to keep this precise wording. No RfC on article content is going to overturn the basic principle that all article content can be changed in the future. The reason this belongs in the article is that it reflects many different sources: newspapers, magazines, books, online media, and in several different countries, and across a long span of time. It's not a blip on the radar in an isolated time and place. The discussion of bimmer/beemer is something that that has been of interest in good sources many times. The basic tone is to use in-text attribution to summarize the opinions of a variety of sources about how people use this slang. It's not a scientific fact: it's a piece of culture with subjective observations made by good sources, and we don't misuse Wikipedia's voice. The only reasons I know of for it not to be here are that articles should only contain dry lists of financial statistics or car specifications, or articles should never speak of things that annoy BMW fans. These objections are false: Wikipedia articles include content based on the weight given by our sources. Our main reader is the general public, not car specialists or enthusiasts. The sources are the reason this is here. The tone will never be perfect and we will always go on making adjustments to try to get it just right. It's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Thorough re-write is required, in my opinion. I agree that pieces of culture have their place in car articles (even if accurately covering the subject is much harder than dry lists of specifications!). The issues I see with the current text are:
  • The "true aficionado" and "uninitiated" statements are WP:FRINGE theories, not reflecting the general attitude of BMW owners/enthusiasts worldwide.
  • Same goes for "Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts", a handful of sources with passing mentions about bimmer/beamer does not justify this blanket statement about enthusiasts worldwide.

However, I have no issue with discussion about one term being more popular than the other, eg "noting that a Google search yielded 10 times as many..." (notwithstanding that Google search result quantities have been dismissed as a reliable method of determining popularity). 1292simon (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with foregoing comments. Not much to add. The issue is not critical, so it is best to concentrate on clarity and quality of writing, and keeping it informative without getting tedious. Never mind being over-sensitive about details. JonRichfield (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

1292simon said a couple of the direct quotes using the terms "true aficionado" and "uninitiated" were a minority point of view, so obscure that they meet our standard for FRINGE. What sources go with that assertion?

There are many sources to support this general thrust: the totally unsurprising fact that a luxury brand has a culture of exclusivity and occasionally snobbery associated with it. You could easily say the same of lots of high-end brands. Some examples: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Certain brands, such as BMW, Harley-Davidson, Ducati, Gucci, Apple, and many others have an identity connected to them, and subcultural identities often come with shibboleths or just obscure jargon to distinguish insiders from outsiders. Here is a more sociological analysis of brand cultures, the image of BMW culture to outsiders, and how BMW subculture members themselves react to it. You could write a whole article about BMW subculture, if you really wanted to. Harley Owners Group is one artilce that discusses how companies stage-manage their own brand culture, and some give H-D credit for pioneering the approach that Ducati, Apple, BMW and others imitated to a certain extent.

This part of our article is only a few lines mentioning some cultural artifacts related to slang. The sources don't say this is a reflection of every single BMW admirer or owner. No discussion of culture, subculture, or language is going to make categorical statements that would describe every single member of a group. It's just observations made by reliable sources.

The use of a search engine test by Business Week was cited as an example of how nobody really has scientific evidence of how many BMW drivers actually consider themselves members of the subculture or ever act as gatekeepers, or which term is dominant. When the best you've got is a search engine test, you're admitting you really don't know. We can't insert that opinion in the article, but we can let the sources speak for themselves.

@1292simon: can you cite the sources that show this is a WP:FRINGE view? If you would like to adjust the wording, I have no objection. We don't have to use direct quotes, but I thought it best in this case not to try to characterize what the sources said, and instead let them speak for themselves. I still think the general theme is correct, and not a fringe view, based on the sources I'm aware of. If you can show me a significant number of sources that call this into question, I'd change my mind. Or we could expand what we have to cite reliable sources who dispute the sources we currently have. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

if say, leave the slang out. It's not really educational and more of a us thing. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, you don't like it. I get that. A lot of people don't seem to like it. But you cite nothing, and make no argument. I just cited a long list of sources that consider BMW's culture and the image of that culture from both the point of view of insiders and outsiders as a subject worthy of articles, long treatises and whole books. I could go on citing more and more of them. Before I do that, I'll cite examples of Wp:Featured articles that have similar discussions of slang, etymology, subculture, and attitudes as worthwhile parts of "Wikipedia's best articles": Octopus card#Etymologies and logo, Slate industry in Wales#Cultural influences, ROT13#Letter games and net culture, The Bus Uncle#The Bus Uncle, 4chan (entire article). And so on. There nothing in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that would suggest this is not encyclopedic. To exclude it is an "us thing", as in "us" deciding that we will include some of what our sources have to say, but arbitrarily exclude other content from the very sources we purport to trust. The WP:Due weight policy says that if our sources give it attention, we must try to give it a proportionate amount of coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, here are some reference I've found for you: 1, 2, 3, 4. They all examine the bimmer vs beemer topic without any mention of elitism (ie true aficionado, unititiated, offending enthusiasts), which would not be the case if the elitism was commonplace. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe the text said that elitism or snobbery was commonplace, only that it existed. But if you want to alter it to make it more explicit that nobody is saying it is common, that's fine.

That said, I don't think the sources you cite offer any evidence either way, since they don't actually say anything about the question of how prevalent elitism is among BMW enthusiasts. If anything at least two of them do take for granted attitudes that are unmistakably superior or exclusive.

This says "Over time, different people (who couldn't spell very well and didn't take the trouble to find out) started to use the term Beamer." It's saying if they call a car a Beemer, it shows they are ignorant of motorcycles and in fact so ignorant that their basic education is called into question. Also, they're lazy, it says. Clearly an elitist attitude. This glorifies the origin of Beemer to the rarefied Olympus of "the track" where everyone is so busy and important they don't have time to say BMW. Car enthusiasts are easily cowed with the fallacy that "if racers do it, it's better". The aftermarket of ill-advised mods thrives on this fallacy. It also says, "When the first BMW cars came out, those same enthusiasts decided that the car couldn't have the same slang as the motorcycle", which is clearly saying that one group must differentiate itself from another group. The car owners would be unhappy if anyone mistook them for members of the motorcycle owner group, and vice versa. We call that exclusivity. The fourth source, again, emphasizes that this slang comes from racing, where heroes are born, and again suggests that exclusivity is a logical reason for the choice.

All four sources accept without question the premise that it actually matters which word anyone uses, and accept the premise that one should not use the words "wrong". The first source say they took another website to task for this error. Why so serious? I ask.

Again, we should not say how common these attitudes are, because we have no data. We have copious sources that say they exist, and the existence of so many sources tells us it meets our standard for WP:WEIGHT. The evidence that elitism and exclusivity are a factor continues to mount. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• @1292simon: you keep repeating that this is a "blanket statement about enthusiasts worldwide." Where? What blanket statement? Which words say anything -- at all -- about all BMW enthusiasts? I don't see any. Not this In the US, specialists have been at pains to prescribe that a distinction must be made between using Beemer exclusively to describe BMW motorcycles, and using Bimmer only to refer to BMW cars, in the manner of a "true aficionado" and avoid appearing to be "uninitiated." This doesn't say that either: "Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts." If you're really worried it says that, just change it to say "Using the wrong slang risks offending some BMW enthusiasts." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Yes, it is vague wording relating to "risks offending BMW enthusiasts" that I mean by the blanket statement. Given the reference that the claim is based on, could we move the sentence earlier so it ties in to the "In the US..." sentence, and re-phrase it to "Using the wrong slang can offend some car enthusiasts."? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• 1) Googling suggests the cited 2003 claim of Google being 10 to 1 in favour of bimmer is now thoroughly dubious, as bimmer now get 6 million hits, beemer 3.2 million (with a dictionary definiton of it as either car or motorcycle, and 5 images, all of them cars), and beamer 15 million (tho not all of these refer to any kind of BMW). (claim now flagged as undue and this item copied for discussion in a new section below).
• 2) Some of the definitions (e.g. Beamer definitions 1.2 and 2.2 at Urban Dictionary(UD)) seem to imply that Beamer may apply to any nice car (though this may perhaps just be praise for BMW by the definition writers). Two definitions (Bimmer 4 at UD, Beemer 4 at UD) imply that Bimmer may get also you in trouble, especially outside America (I've never heard Bimmer used in Ireland, but maybe I just lead a sheltered existence). The defintions at UD are frequently inconsistent. But many UD definitions and examples imply that any of these nicknames may get you in trouble. And this is not because you will cause offense, but because you may receive a gratuitously offensive response. (But I'm not sure that we can say this as I don't think UD counts as a WP:RS).
• 2b) And after removing 2 inappropriate sources, our current remaining source that says that 'misusing' Beamer may cause offense is an unverifiable dead link, with no named author, bad editing ("as" instead of "so as"), and seems not to be a WP:RS (being apparently one individual's contribution to a Question and Answer session, with no clear indication of who any of the Q&A individuals might be).
• 2c) So I've added a CN explaining much of this in the reason parameter (though I haven't mentioned there that there may be special problems with bimmer outside America - anybody can add that if they think it should be there).

Tlhslobus (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Urban dictionary is garbage. Please, never speak of it again.

  In addition to the numerous sources already given, 1292simon added four more sources that verify for us that BMW enthusiasts think it is important to "correctly" use the terms bimmer and beemer. We have zero sources telling us that it doesn't matter. Non-BMW fans and grown-up adults with a proper sense of perspective almost certainly realize that this is a bullshit thing for anybody to care about, but our sources are telling us that car enthusiasts and BMW enthusiasts in particular generally think it matters to get this "right", whatever "right" is. The fact that BMW enthusiasts care about this is, according to many, many sources, a relevant fact to know about BMW culture.

  Remember, when I say "Americans like baseball", that does not say "ALL Americans like baseball". It doesn't even say "MOST Americans like baseball". It only tells us something that is identified with Americans. Many sources will say "Star Wars fans disown the Christmas Special". That doesn't mean ALL Star Wars fans hate the Christmas Special, it just says that opinion is a characteristic one associates with Star Wars fans. One hundred percent of them? No. 51% of them? No. Any specific percent of them? We don't know. That's not the point. Saying "Vodka is the national drink of Russia" does not mean all Russians drink vodka, or "Tea time is very English" does not mean every single Englishman is into tea time. If I say, "Burning the American Flag risks offending Americans", that does not mean 100% of Americans care if you burn a flag. Some don't. That is why "Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts" is not a blanket statement about every BMW enthusiast. It is a statement about what characterizes BMW enthusiasts, according to a very large number of sources. Zero sources contradict this characterization. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Tlhslobus. Regarding point 2c, I agree that the supporting reference does not pass WP:RS. Also, the quote says "...as not to offend the car enthusiast that enlightened me", so the author is just referring to one person. Also, that part of the quote is a throwaway line in a "chatty" piece, so it is misuse to base a factual claim on it. For these reasons, I think it should be removed. Cheers 1292simon (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Simon, I'm very much inclined to agree with you.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Weird what high standards we apply to sources that say things about BMW that a few editors don't like, while over on the E30 article, as long as there's any old source somewhere on the page, then we can happily vouch that all the horsepower and torque figures are good as gold. The other sources cited, including the ones 1292Simon found, support the general sense that those who fancy themselves knowledgeable about BMW can be characterized as taking offense by those who don't care one way or the other which vowels we imagine could exist after the B. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, I never said the E30 horsepower figures are "good as gold" without references. I thought it might be ok if the references for the figures were provided in the articles for the engines instead. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Just saying, neither Bimmer not Beamer are common terms for BMW. As far as I have noticed, all of the "evidence" provided here refers to online sources rather than books. In this case, I consider citing books mandatory. Online sources are not eligible. However, since the terms Beamer and Bimmer are both uncommon in my opinion, I doubt that good reliable sources can be found. Actually, I am quite surprised and wonder why one would say either Bimmer or Beamer? I have never heard anyone saying this. The common term for a BMW vehicle is just BMW, which is an easily pronouncable three-syllable term that doesn't require a fancy replacement word. Surprisingly, Beamer actually refers to a digital image projector rather than a BMW automobile. --2003:4D:EA1C:4D00:616D:2678:76E9:683A (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Close to a dozen good reliable sources have already been found and cited. Wikipedia isn't a compendium of what you or I have personally heard anyone say. The cited sources have already reported the fact that these terms are common. Nobody has cited anything which contradicts the reliable sources that have been cited so far. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I had not seen the box with cited sources, only the links with the online sources below, my bad. I don't see a problem with adding the Bimmer-Beemer thing then, just cite the sources properly. However, I have found a lot of unreliable books, so choose carefully. --2003:4D:EA1C:4D00:ED86:65:B10:A01A (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight given to outdated 2003 10 to 1 bimmer Google claim

(copied from previous section) Googling suggests the cited 2003 claim of Google being 10 to 1 in favour of bimmer is now thoroughly dubious, as bimmer now get 6 million hits, beemer 3.2 million (with a dictionary definiton of it as either car or motorcycle, and 5 images, all of them cars), and beamer 15 million (tho not all of these refer to any kind of BMW). So I've now flagged this as undue.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(I also added this in the Undue template's reason parameter, but that doesn't seem to display anymore).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The 2003 claim is also hard to verify, as the link is dead, and the claim is also strange, given that it's so at variance with things now, that the editor is unnamed, and that it never mentions googling the spelling Beamer.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It also seems likely that rich owners of BMW cars were a much higher proportion of Internet users in 2003 than now (even though they are presumably still somewhat over-represented), thus perhaps explaining the ratio changes, and this thus seemingly was and is thus a tiny rich elite telling the rest of us how we should speak, by questionably or wrongly claiming this is how most people do actually speak.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I've now removed my undue flag and cited today's Google results, justified per WP:IAR if necessary. The flag will presumably have to go back if the previous situation is restored for some reason or other.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tlhslobus. I think the Business Week reference can be useful... but without the Google hits bit. Despite whatever Business Week thinks, Wikipedia does not consider search engine results quantities as a reliable source. So my suggestion is to remove all the Google stuff and use the "Both nicknames are widely used..." quote as a reference for "...using Bimmer only to refer to BMW cars". See reply to Dennis below Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, 1292simon. But it seems to me that would involve replacing 100% verifiable data with a 100% unverifiable and deeply flawed claim in an unverifiable dead link (which, if I understand you right, you seem to be suggesting we continue to use as some sort of RS, while completely distorting the meaning of what it actually said) in a way that will be deeply misleading to our readers, thereby clearly disimproving the Encyclopedia. I don't know what rule, if any, supposedly mandates us to do that, but if it exists we are seemingly obliged to ignore it per WP:IAR and per the related 5th pillar of Wikipedia.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Also we have no need to say that "Bimmer refers only to cars", since that is amply demonstrated elsewhere in the section, or even that "only Bimmer refers to cars" (which is what the Business Week article says but so do 4 other old references, even though they seem demonstrably wrong about the situation today, and quite likely also about the true situation in 2003). If we can't have the Googles, then I think the whole sentence should go, though I suspect that would actually be doing a wikilawyering disservice to our readers, contrary to WP:IAR and the 5th pillar of Wikipedia, by seemingly misleading them about the true position today, in a way that the current sentence does not. A somewhat inferior alternative might be to leave the sentence without the Googles, but have it flagged in some way that makes it clear to our readers that it's pretty dodgy (but that would still leave them a bit mystified, thus making it an inferior solution). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

But quite likely the best solution may be to look at the various British English and American English dictionary entries for Bimmer, Beemer and Beamer at the multi-dictionary site http://www.lexilogos.com/english/dictionary.htm, and use them as reliable sources. I'm too busy right now, but if nobody else does it I'll probably do so eventually some other time. If that makes it clear what the RS situation is today, I'm not too worried about what was said in 2003, provided the wording makes it reasonably clear to our readers that it's only referring to 2003 (e.g. by saying Google counts at the time) - tho scrapping it altogether might be better given its verifiability and undue weight problems even in relation to the situation in 2003. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• The reason the Business Week WP:GOOGLETEST assertion was written with WP:INTEXT attribution is that it expresses a point about Business Week. It is telling the reader the source's opinion about this subject. The reason the specific year this was published is mentioned in-text is because it means to say exactly that: in 2003 the source Business Week was satisfied that the question was resolved by a Google test. It does not say it is an accepted fact, in the same way man-made climate change or the non-planet status of Pluto is an accepted fact. It does not say this is true in 2004 or 2005 or Stardate 2450. It says a very specific thing from a specific source at a specific time. The reason for all this specificity and in-text attribution is that this is not an objective fact and there is no objective research on this opinion. Just like there is no objective research on whether Star Wars is more of a space opera or a fanasy-sci-fi or a Buck Rogers nostalgia flick. We're not debating the curb weight of a BMW 525i, which an be settled by an independent source weighing the car on a scale. We are informing the reader what various reliable sources think or surmise about a subjective phenomenon.

  In contrast, the addition "though googling gives very different results today" is a violation of the WP:NOR policy and a misuse of WP:WikiVoice. It's like saying in an article, "Dennis Bratland walked down to Whole Foods last Thursday and the parking lot looked empty, which proves that Whole Foods is dying." The 'parking lot' test is not an objective criterion, and Dennis Bratland's data collection is original research. Telling readers about google tests you personally conducted is not allowed in the article namespace. Keep in mind also that Google uses your location and your prior search history and the contents of your gmail account and who knows what to adjust the search results you see. Your search results and my search results are not identical. It's a hopelessly skunked question.

  If you want to write something in the article that argues with the opinions that Business Week published in 2003, you needed to find that published in a reliable source. It's not your decision whether or not Business Week's opinions are wrong. Our sources get to device that for us. So many editors want to argue with the verifiable information found in reliable sources about this whole Buttle-Tuttle bimmer/beemer confusion, but they keep failing to find relaible sources to back it up. That's a clue: you're inserting your own opinions, following your own agenda. You're not letting the sources lead you. The earlier version of this was an accurate reflection of what the sources have to say here, even if you don't like it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree that Business Week's opinion is a fact, regardless of whether their method of reaching that opinion is flawed. But the purpose of it in the article is as a data point regarding the relative popularity of bimmer vs beemer. For this purpose, an opinion based on a 14 year old Googletest is not a very good source. So I now think the article should use dictionary results instead. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    • You will find many editors who either reject dictionaries entirely, or consider them less reliable than other types of sources, due to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. To give one example, see Evergreen's comment at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Tranny.

      More importantly, and I can't emphasize this enough: this is not about whether bimmer or beemer is "correct". The answer to that question is not encyclopedic, per WP:NOTDICT, and is of vanishingly small relevance, per WP:WEIGHT. This about the weight sources give to the fact that BMW fans care about which is "correct". The point of this is to inform readers that this is a signifier of BMW subculture. Just like Air Force people care about whether you say "flight deck" or "cockpit" or Navy people care about whether you call an "aviator" a "pilot". Army sergeants don't like being called "sir", Air Force sergeants expect to be called "sir". Which is correct? We don't care. The fact that they care is what we are writing about. Over at beemer and bimmer you can has out that debate, but the encyclopedic question is "what does this say about BMW culture?". You won't find much cultural information in any dictionary, because ditionaries aren't long-form treatises on culture. The sources we have for that are books, journals, magazines, feature articles in newspapers, and similar long-form media. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

      • Ahh, could you point me towards the policy that covers using dictionaries as sources?

        I understand your point about the cultural significance, but how does this relate to Business Week's claim about the Google results? (For the record, I actually have no opinion about whichever is more popular / applies to motorbikes only / etc) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170211055512/http://www.carscoops.com/2013/07/jay-leno-pulls-out-mclaren-f1-v12.html to https://www.carscoops.com/2013/07/jay-leno-pulls-out-mclaren-f1-v12.html

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)