Talk:Jeep

Automobiles B‑class High‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Marque

1st sentence: "...and the distinctive 7-bar front grill design"
2nd sentence: "the distinctive Jeep grille"

Which spelling is correct? Thryduulf 18:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Grille is the thing on the front of a vehicle. A grill is something you cook on. --SFoskett 19:09, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

First SUV

Can Cherokee really be called "the original SUV", with the Range Rover being introduced four years earlier? Mind, the RR didn't get introduced into the North American market, where the SUV term originated, until years later. Harald Hansen 07:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One might also refer to the Jeepster as the first SUV... --SFoskett 18:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The compact 4x4s introduced in 1983 by GM (S-10 Blazer/S-15 Jimmy), Ford (Bronco II) and AMC (Cherokee) were, as far as I know, the first vehicles to have the "SUV" term attached to them. In a sense you could say the XJ Cherokee is "the original SUV", as it pioneered the SUV name and many of the technologies used in today's SUVs (unibody, etc.). However I would say the original '63 Wagoneer was the "original SUV", as it was the first (relatively) popular utility vehicle designed specfifically as a somewhat-luxurious family vehicle rather than an offroad truck for farmers and enthusiasts. --93JC 20:25, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

My 1974 Jeep Technical Service Manual uses the term "Sport Utility" to describe the then all-new Cherokee. I would say that the '40s Willys 4x4 all-steel station wagon was the original SUV, with the 1963 Wagoneer being the first true LUXURY SUV (four-wheel drive, independent suspension, OHC engine, automatic transmission, power steering, air conditioning). --Plasticboob 13 Jun, 2007

List of Jeep Galleries

211.245.243.189 pulled the model images and made a gallery seperate from here. Personally, I liked the pictures of the Models in the article and I think they add to it. What I am looking for is comments. Terry 14:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche

What about the Jeep Comanche truck?

Commercial Links

I have removed a series of three commercial links since 1) they were commercial, 2) they were boldfaced, 3) they are the only additions made to the site by this user (based on the IP address, which is all that is available, and 4) the user placed them at the top of the "External links" list and later moved down other links that appeared above his (her) commercial links. To me, this looks like blatant commercial plugging, so I've removed it. --Badger151 13:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the jeep

The discussion on the development of the WWII army jeep may not have discussed vehicles bearing the jeep nameplate, but I'd like to see some concensus before it is removed. Arguably, there would be no Jeep nameplate if the army jeep hadn't been developed. So, I've reverted the deletion. --Badger151 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wording below is very confusing: "saying that the vehicle was designed for, was never referred to as "GP", and that the name may have been derived from referring to the vehicle as GP (G, and P to designate)." Mike (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the first jeep

I added two existing photos of military jeeps in this section. The first is the Bantam (right image), the next is the Willys (left image). I thought they fit well with article text. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes! :) Oscar Arias 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sentence//Genericized Trademark Info

The term is also used to refer generically to what are now known as SUVs, whether the vehicle in question bears the Jeep nameplate or not.

That sentence is false, no one who drives a ford explorer calls it a Jeep, they call it an SUV. Road guy 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "needs citation" reference and it was responded to, but I still disagree with the statement. All the support simply shows that the term was (past tense) used generically in WWI. There does not seem to be any support for this claim today. --Robb0995 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just coldn't take it. I dropped the whole part about the genericized trademark. The support added yesterday made it even more clear that there is no present-day issue with the trademark. Only if there were documented supported that today SUVs are generically referred to as "jeeps" would the deleted content make sense. In the course of deleting this info, there was some mention of the first WWI/WWII vehicles, but that info is already covered in the "origin" section. If you really want to make it clear that the term was once generically used, it seems to make more sense in this section than in the article head. --Robb0995 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the comment in the head about jeep being a "genericized trademark". Particularly when the next section goes on at some detail about the origins of the name. It is very clear that the word was used in a non-trademarked way prior to its use as a trademark. What we have here is a generic, or maybe functional, term being converted to a trademark, not the other way around. (While the "GP" was clearly a Ford designation rather than an abbreviation for "General Purpose", it is credible that those using jeeps in that era assumed that it meant General Purpose.) If any reference is actually needed in the head, it should be something along the lines of "While 'jeep' was used in World War II to refer to vehicles manufactured by three different vendors, it is now a registered trademark of <whoever-the-hell-it-is-now>". Vanhorn (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky commercial linkspam

User:65.6.213.240 cleverly added the same link to the Non-official sites list twice, once as a blatant addition, and once, in another location in the same list, with a byline. I reproduce the links here (having scrambled them some, so as to prevent their replacement via copy-and-paste). No doubt she or he will be back.

[bttp://ww,autotrucktoys,com/jeep/ Jeep Accessories] - Jeep accessories, facts, history, info and parts reviews.
[bttp://ww,autotrucktoys,com/jeep/ Jeep Accessories]

--Badger151 17:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing model: Jeepster, Jeepster-Commando, Commando

There is a missing Jeep model, the Jeepster (later Jeepster Commando and later Commando) made in the 1950's, and later in 1967-1973. The Jeepster was similar to a modern SUV in size. Can someone (or should I do a little research for exact dates) and add the Jeepster? 162.83.81.166 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial external links

I noticed the external links section here seems to be a bt out of control! I removed some links that appeared to be just about selling jeeps or parts (and one site that wasn't in English). But the rest of the section is also very out of line with the Wikipedia external links guidelines. There seem to be a lot of small fansites here, which aren't really encyclopedic in their nature. If there are sites that the majority of jeep enthusaists use then they may be appropriate, but most of these seem to have a few hundred members, some a few thousand - none appear to be the sort of authoritative site that desreves a listing in an encyclopedia.....

I'd like to remove the following:

JeepGuide: Tutorials, Pictures, Tools, Reviews, Prices, etc - Everything is listed as "Coming soon", at the moment it seems to just be a Google adsense revenue generating site.
International Full Size Jeep Assn -Seems like another enthusiast site. More traffic than most, but still relatively limited.
JeepForum.com — Jeep Enthusiast Website and Forums - According to the guidelines, in general forums are not appropriate to link to.
Jeep Reviews - There's nothing on the site that talks about who created it and why, so its reliability is questionable. But if it's a very well known and highly respected site in the jeep community (i.e. most editors here had heard of it from somewhere other than Wikipedia, and think it's good), then it should stay.
www.g503.com Ford GPW & Willys MB -On the surface it looks like a good enthusiasts site, with more "registered members" than most. But there's not much movement in the wiki or blog, leaving me wondering how well known the site is - again, do editors of these pages know this site from somewhere other than Wikipedia?
Poem about the Jeep- Home of the Jeep ~ Butler, Pa. Doesn't really seem encyclopedic.
Jeep Gallery- Thousands of Jeep pictures. -Seems to be a minor site (claims less than 500 registered users) and is heavily supported by adsense advertising. Content doesn't seem better tahn any of the other similar sites.
MoJeepin.com- Forums, news, installs and product reviews. Again - less than 500 registered users. seems like a minor site with nothing particularly unique to add".
42FordGPW.com- More than 73 megabytes/2000+ files pertaining to WW2 jeeps and other related topics. - As above, seems like another minor fan site.
The M151 Mutt (Military Unit Tactical Truck) - While this actually has some information in it, it's nothing that can't be (or isn't already) in the article.
Jeep Gallery -A gallery of images on an ad-supported site. We ought to link to wikimedia commons instead and encourage GFDL'd images?
How The Jeep Got its Name -A commercial site with an OK essay that tells us nothing that can't be in the article anyway
The 4x4 Forum for Michigan and Surrounding Great Lakes. -Appears to be a site for people in the Great Lakes region, which is pretty linited for a Wikipedia, with its International mandate!
Jeepin.com - The Jeep Enthusiasts' Website. Another enthusaists site. Dosn't seem to be any different from the rest.
Jeeps-Offroad.com - Jeep Enthusiast Forums, Tech Articles, & Reviews Another enthusiasts site. Doesn't seem to be any different from the rest.

This would basically get rid of the entire section. Other opinions? --Siobhan Hansa 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for sure - Wikipedia shouldn't just be a random list of external links, and these links do nothing to add to encyclopedic content. 86.134.40.60 16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link:

The First Jeep

was added back in. It's from a website that appears to be being promoted on Wikipedia by the author, although it's an anon IP that added this link. I don't see the encyclopedic value. Though I appreciate Jeeps evoke strong emotional attachment for many people it still doesn't seem like this particular link deserves to be on an encyclopedia article. I wanted to see if other Jeep editors have seen this poetry quoted anywhere else in relation to jeeps? Or think it is in some other way encyclopedic? Or there is a strong consensus to just keep it anyway. If not I'll keep deleting it. Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spammy, it's not irrelevant, and I do feel it adds an angle. I'd keep it. Poweroid 15:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think g503 and the International FSJ Assoc. can be put back in. I have heard of these outside of WP. g503 is one of the best MB/GPW sites out there, and the FSJ page has a pretty good tech section. --Sable232 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the timlines of the M38A1, M38A1C, and M38A1D. The years that were previously published were the military service life, and not the production years. -Avalon01

The Jeep logo

Not having a caption for logos is a Wiki guideline - or a suggestion - and the "Jeep" logo is an obvious logo -- it is not placed in this article as advertising, marketing, spam. or because of various other promotional conflicts of interest. Therefore, it does not need a caption stating that this logo is a "Jeep logo". The "Jeep" name used by the company is not an obscure design that needs an explanation. Furthermore, this caption has been removed by a number of editors, yet a minority seems to keep bringing it back for unsupported reasons. CZmarlin 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Captions#Special situations -- CZmarlin 04:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks - whatever the merits - edit warring over it is not good for the article. Discuss different wording here or get some independent input. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeep logo is clearly identified as a registered trademark. It has the symbol in the lower right corner. This is an indication of its role as an official logo. There is no "guessing" what this image represents. Therefore, there is no need to identify this symbol with a caption that it is a logo. The Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that no caption is needed with current images of logos. Please also stop adding captions to logos in other articles. They are all following Wikipedia guidelines. The placement of images of logos within the articles only helps explain and describe the subject of the article. This function is NOT advertising. It does serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Thank you -- CZmarlin 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of models

Let's aim for more models having a photo, so people can have a quick visual reference. --Plasticboob 13 Jun 2007

Do we really need to include every variant of every vehicle in the list? I think the trim packages can be adressed in the article for the truck on which they were available. If there's no objections, I'll remove them. --Sable232 17:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeep logo.png

Image:Jeep logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeepnewlogo.PNG

Image:Jeepnewlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some discussion here about the use of "jeep" as an adjective applied to military vehicles. About half of the aircraft carriers in use by the US navy at the end of WWII were of a type referred to as jeep carriers. These were much smaller than fleet and escort carriers and were used to ferry aircraft into combat in the Pacific and to escort convoys in the Atlantic. They rarely saw combat. They were armed with a single 5" gun, carried about 35 aircraft, were entirely unarmored, and typically carried no bombs or torpedos (in the Pacific). They were mostly converted Liberty ships and my recollection is that they displaced about 6000 tons and had a top speed of 17 knots (could be wrong about specs).

But they were nearly always referred to as "jeep carriers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.114.167 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep trail information moved

There was an inappropriate paragraph in the lead section talking about jeep trails. It doesn't belong in an article about Jeeps themselves. I moved it to a new article, Jeep trail, and linked it from the "see also" section. I searched and couldn't find any article about off-road trails under several different titles that I tried. I don't know if that's the best title for that article - perhaps a subject expert can rename if it necessary. But it certainly should be in a separate article, not here. -dmmaus 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Concepts

So far I've been unable to track down any information whatsoever on the "Cherokee Targa," or "Jeep Aggressor," both listed as Jeep concepts. Anyone have more info on this?

Untitled Comments

Someone keeps changing the Production years of the M38A1 to the years it was used in the military. I've changed it back. Avalon01 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have an article on the Jeep without citing the individual who invented the Jeep? The same person who was awarded the utility patent for the Jeep. Anyone ever heard of Colonel Byron Q. Jones?

Also, Jeep did not originate from 'General Purpose' but rather 'Governmental Purpose' which is a classification given to many military vehicles. GP=Jeep

Just a thought - ICarriere

The designation of G.P. is not for 'General Purpose'. GP (W) - In 1941, G = "Government(regardless of year), P = 80" wheelbase Reconnaissance Car, and the W = apparently means Willys pattern". (ref http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/99-09/0764.html)

What Car company is IH? We could add link. Rmhermen 13:23 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Rmhermen, Answer: International Harvester - I assume this is/was an American car/truck/farm equipment maker..

I'm just starting to fumble my way around here; thanks for fixing my fixes in Toledo, Ohio!

Later, Chris

Didn't know International Harvester ever made passenger vehicles. I just checked and International Harvester is a "was" In 1983 the tractor division merged with Case and the truck division became Navistar. Rmhermen

Do we need separate pages for jeep, the military vehicle and Jeep the line of civilian vehicles? Rmhermen 14:12 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Rmhermen, thank you for your excellent updates here and to the Willys page.

I would think that the military and civilian vehicles are common enough up until the late 1970s that a single page could cover them. Things split up after that what with the Army buying Blazers and the Jeep turning into the Wrangler, Cherokee, Eagle... and spawning the SUV era. I have always seen that as the end of the era. Blazers and hummvs have little in common with Jeeps beyond 4wd, the blazer in particular being built on a Chevvy pickup chassis.

My two cents. Kat 16:18 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

Let me try to answer some questions taken above.

Jeep is a trademark - actually belongs to DaimlerChrysler. The name originates from G. P. i.e. General Purpose - the abreviation is a typical US military slang (such as G.I. Joe, for instance).

--This is a Major misconception--
G.P. Does not stand for General Purpose. Read 1st paragraph above.--Terry 15:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are tendencies for the word to be genericized, this word is still protected by trademark laws of different countries. Accordingly, only DaimlerChrysler is entitled to use the mark Jeep. No other all-road 4-wheel-drive vehicles are "Jeeps", not even a Mitsubishi Pajero or a Chevrolet Blazer.

--Actually Ford made 250,000 "Jeeps" during WWII. Ford lost the initial contract to Willy to develop them but was given an award to build the exact same model that Willy developed. Point is that DC is the current Trademark holder and thus not the only holder of the "Jeep" trademark. --Terry 15:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning, a call for a bid had been made by the US Army. The loser company - called American Bantam - used this abbreviation first when it offered his Army Reconaissance Truck to the Army. The winner of the bid was Willys. If anybody is interested in, I am ready to offer a detailed timeline, how the original Jeep trademark went from a company to another.

(such as Willys-Overland, Kaiser, AMC, Renault and Chrysler).

Hi everybody Millisits

Not so fast on Jeep not coming from the abbreviation for General Purpose. Things get a little more confusing when you through in the documentary short "The Autobiography of a Jeep" from WWII. If you have the documentary Memphis Belle on VHS (yes, I'm not talking about the movie that came out in the late '80s, early '90s but a documentary from '44), then check it and see if this short is on the end or even included. My copy on VHS is a 1995 rerelease from Alpha Video Distributors, and I just checked the short to see what was said back during the war concerning the name. The short was made by United Films and claims that the nickname jeep came from the first letters of General Purpose. This is something from the war actually claiming the phonetics of GP became jeep. However, as I said it becomes more confusing as this short appears to have been directed towards the public.

This page really needs to conform to other automobile pages. Jeep is a brand of car, not a generic term. There needs to be a place to chronicle the military jeep, but there also needs to be a different place for the marque. I propose using "Jeep" for the car brand (since that's the trademark) and "Army jeep" for the military vehicles. Thoughts? --Sfoskett 18:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Sfoskett, Thanks for your sympathy to my lines. I think, however, that this is a case of temporary'genericization of trademarks, so, this is not a disambiguation case. Since "Jeep" and the proposed "Army Jeep" belong to the same story, I think only one (the existing) entry would do. (Let me tell you a similar case. In Hungary (my homeland)in my youth there was a shortage in razor blades (see: 1984 of George Orwell). No original Gillette blades were available and people used the word "zsilett" ("Gillette" pronounced in Hungarian) as a sinonym of all kinds of razor blades. For young generation, it is a clearcut case: Gillette blades etc are being marketed in the country and everybody knows that Gillette is a brand.)

--Millisits

OK, so how about we move the military stuff to a section and make the page primarily about the modern car brand? We can disambiguate right on the page and provide links to other historical models if needed. But the page has got to link to the Cherokee, Liberty, Wrangler, etc as well. I'll do it this week. --SFoskett 16:11, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, what do you think? Clear? --SFoskett 18:37, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)