Talk:Chevrolet Vega

Is this really right ?

"each employing a 140 cu in (2,300 cc) inline-4 engine with an aluminum-alloy cylinder block and a single overhead cam, cast-iron cylinder head. "

I am not the worlds biggest expert by any means, but I know of dozens of 70's cars with cast iron blocks and alloy cylinder heads, and never heard of one which was the other way around. Could this have been vandalised and nobody noticed ? Eregli bob (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's really right. The engine section of the article explains why...strength and lower cost are the reasons for the iron head. The aluminum block was used to showcase the liner-less, silicon cylinder bore technology pioneered by GM engineers started in the 50s. Vegavairbob (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Too long

Does anyone else think this article is way too long? This is a car that was only sold for 7 years, yet the article is much longer than the Ford F-Series article. It needs to be shortened a lot, especially the Reception section. Many of the photos are also unnecessary (in my opinion) and should be eliminated. —Reelcheeper (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is divided and subdivided into readable sections. Reader has the option from the contents to select what they'd like to read (or skip). The article is recieving twice as many hits per day now than when it was "too short", and it is not on the largest articles list. As for Ford pickup article, a paragraph per generation should be minimum for a vehicle with 12 generations, and each generation (usually) has seperate articles, with the main article a general overview.

6k bytes have been trimmed from Reception, Design, Lordstown Assembly, Stillborn engines and DeLorean factor sections. Five images were also removed. Images are evenly spaced, depict text and do not crowd article sections.Vegavairbob (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reelcheeper, the article's length is the beginning of its problems. Additionally, the tone, the mis-emphasis on trivia, the diarrhoeic citation of information without the transparent inclusion of direct quotes within the reference citations, the abuse of the passive voice and the general self-enthralled wordiness — all contribute to the article having become a self-celebratory "fan page" rather than a reference article. The notion that the article's 'width and girth' are the factor contributing to the traffic here is not only hugely self-congratulatory — it is a conflation that overlooks other very real factors that can increase traffic, e.g., the simple possibility the article is now more well-linked to other articles, Wikipedia itself is getting more hits, etc. Essentially, the article has been kidnapped by one editor — and this has been pointed out repeatedly. The unvarnished facts would do a far more effective job of serving the Vega; leave it to the astute reader to see through the mawkish grandstanding. 842U (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are 135 seperate references in this article. Every statement is from a reliable referenced source. Any concern as to its neutality (seperate critisism section), and other issues have been properly addressed over a year ago. Most retrospect writers haven't had access to, or chose not to include much of this information (ie. seven years of development and improvements) which dosen't support biased and opioninated conclusions. Vegavairbob (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The article no longer conforms to anything close to Wikipedia standards; nor has it been created in the spirit of cooperation that is a prerequisite of Wikipedia. It is an exercise in puffery, one the astute reader can easily discern. 842U (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC

I added a gallery for the deleted images and provided award info to balance the article's neutrality with the criticism section since the entire Reception section was deleted. I reduced the article from 86 bytes (27 December 2010 842U5) to 77 bytes (29 January 2011 Vegavairbob) trimming the Design section, Engine sections including Rotory, DeLorean and Criticism sections and replaced the large production/changes chart with a smaller chart. Cosworth section and infobox Deleted (new page). Some noteworthy text added back to Aluminum block and Lordstown Assembly. Total size reduction from 128k bytes to 77k bytes.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious issues remain; the article can be improved dramatically: the article remains rufty in its attention to anecdotal detail; the article avoids an encyclopedic tone in favor of a chatty, poorly sourced fancruft; the article reflects the viewpoint of one editor – despite that editor having been warned repeatedly of the nature of the problem. These are significant departures from Wikipedia guidelines. 842U (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

The article has numerous issues, including fancruft, inclusion of trivia, length issues, contains speculations, original research and uses synthesis. Do not remove these tags until the article has been wikified. 842U (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed every issue on this discussion page long before your ridiculous claims and minor contributions. Your're a year late with nothing constructive to do. Stop flagging the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.75.14 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please confine your comments to the article, and please sign your comments. The article has serious issues as it stands. It may be best to bring in more editors and see what can be done to bring the article into conformance with Wikipedia guidelines. In the meantime, the flags on the article will remain, to advice readers of the problems. 842U (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion of the issues, both pro and con, about the article in its current state can be seen here, at Wikiprojects Automobiles, (Chevrolet Vega discussion) which helps to frame automotive article within Wikipedia guidelines. 842U (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, Further discussion of the issues about the article in its current state can be seen here, at Wikiprojects Automobiles, (Chevrolet Vega discussion) which helps to frame automotive article within Wikipedia guidelines. 842U (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing: the larger story of the Vega

The article goes far to highlight trivial information about the Vega — e.g., giving the application of the Vega's fake wood siding and paint chemistry their own sections. It should to go to greater length to include the copious critical and easily available information on more serious and relevant aspects of the car — information about its poor reliability, poor construction, poor engineering, poor safety record, and how the totality of its problems as a product impacted not only its success, but the success and failure of its manufacturer and its impact on the US car industry. What small amount of this information the article does include in this vein is largely buried or obfuscated.

• 1990 Time Magazine noted "The bad reputation spread in 1970 with the Chevrolet Vega, a poorly engineered car notorious for rust and breakdowns."
• 1971 Time Magazine noted: "Films of those tests were shown at a Washington press conference last week by Institute President William Haddon Jr., former director of the National Highway Safety program. They might badly shake many buyers of small new cars, which now account for one-third of sales. In some crashes, the small car was smashed into a pile of twisted junk barely recognizable as an auto, while the bigger car sustained relatively moderate damage. In the Chevrolet crash, a dummy placed in the Impala only struck its head against the dashboard, but the dummy in the Vega was beheaded by a section of the hood that was hurled back through the windshield."
• 1993 In his book In the Rings of Saturn, Joe Sherman said that "by it's third recall, ninety five percent of all Vegas manufactured before May 1972 had critical safety flaws." adding that "reviews of the car noted its tendency to skid violently in sudden stops." The author said the Vega's "checkered history only reinforced the belief that GM made inferior small cars. This legacy would prove far more important than any direct impact the Vega would have on GM's profits."
• 1974 In her book, Paradise Lost: The Decline of the Auto-Industrial Age, noted historian Emma Rothschild said the Vega was "an extreme case in the capacity for inspiring and then dashing consumer expectations."
• 2000 The Vega placed second in the Car Talk Worst car of the Millennium poll.
• 2003 In their book Unusually Stupid Americans, authors Ross and Kathryn Petras said the Vega "didn't go all that fast, consumed a lot of oil, the aluminum engine warped and the car tended to fall apart in accidents, if it didn't collapse from metal fatigue."
• 2005 The Vega was voted the least-loved American car in a 2005 MSNBC readers poll.
• 2007 Paul Niedermeyer at The Truth About Cars said in his article Chevy Volt: Vega Redux?, "The prolonged wait for the Chevrolet Volt reminds me uncomfortably of waiting for the Chevrolet Vega to appear. For GM’s sake, the outcome had better be radically different. Because no one single vehicle did more damage to GM then the highly-hyped Vega." Adding: "The Vega became a cause of national interest: if Americans could beat the Russians to the moon, GM could damn well beat back the imports" and "the standard three-speed stick was just as much a throwback to the fifties."
• 2008 Popular Mechanics, in the article 10 Cars that Damaged General Motors said "the Vega was actually a sales success. But ultimately that meant there were just that many more people disappointed by the Vega. By the mid-1980s, Vegas were being junked so aggressively that some salvage yards in Southern California had signs up saying they wouldn't accept any more. When even the junkyard won't take a car, that's trouble." They also said: "Throw in haphazard build quality and sheetmetal that you could practically hear rusting away, and the Vega truly rates as one of GM's great debacles."
• 2008 Rick Newman, writing for U.S. News's article The Chevy Vega: the Worst Detroit Car Ever? said "It sold well. Then the body started to rust. The aluminum engine started to warp. There were engine fires and mounting recalls. Horrified buyers fled, and General Motors killed the car by the late 1970s."
• 2008 Newman, also writing for U.S. News in the article Why America Is Shunning GM said of the Pinto and Vega, "those cars and numerous follow-ons now wear badges of horror identifying them as some of the worst cars in history—with millions of owners to bear witness" and "the Vega came with a cheap aluminum engine that couldn't withstand its own heat and often warped or melted before the car reached 50,000 miles." and "In short, bottom-rung benchmarks were set. Millions of customers—many from families with a long history of loyalty to Ford or Chevrolet or Chrysler—swore off domestics forever."
• 2009 In their column The 10 Most Embarrassing Award Winners in Automotive History, editors at CarandDriver.com said "It’s been 38 years since the Vega appeared, and the stink still won’t wash off."
• 2010 In the article The Chevrolet Vega--What Went Wrong? on Carlustblog.com, says after describing the Vega's engine problems: "And the fun didn't stop there. The engine's vibrations also caused the screws holding the Rochester carburetor together to work loose. When they got loose enough, the carb would start coming apart and raw gasoline would flow into the cylinders. Some of that gas ended up pooling in the muffler, where the heat would ignite it, causing backfires and worse. Sometimes the gas would leak in the other direction, dripping down over the outside of the hot engine block and causing a fire." Adding: "The worst part for GM was that, as bad as it was, the Vega fiasco wasn't life-threatening. Sure, there were millions of dollars in losses from the turmoil at Lordstown and the warranty claims and recalls, but GM could afford it. In 1977, as the last Vega rolled off the line to end this shameful chapter in automotive history, GM was still one of the most powerful industrial corporations on the planet, and it still had around 45% of the U.S. vehicle market. It was easy to just attribute it all to bad luck and ignore the underlying problems."
• 2010 In his book Generation Busted, author Alan Zemek said "Chevrolet's answer to the Japanese car, left it with a black eye."
• 2010 Editors at Popular Mechanics magazine called it "the car that nearly destroyed GM."
• 2010 Newsweek magazine called the Vega "famously crappy."

(this section was previously titled: the Truth About the Chevy Vega)

The REAL truth (summary)

Truth actually doesn't take long, but it has to be accurate. This is the final entry in Reception - Criticism (auto press) Oh and click on Achilles heel for the definition. It pretty much sums things up. Read the Problem areas, then the Reception section. then you'll have the story The last part of reception criticism (internet) is nothing more than biased opinion.

Motor Trend in its 50th Anniversary issue, published September 1999 said, "The Vega seemed well placed to set the standard for subcompacts in the 70s, but it was troubled by one of the most vulnerable Achilles heels in modern automotive history; an alloy four-cylinder engine block that self destructed all too easily, and all too often. Once the word got out the damage was done, even though the engine had been revamped. The Vega became a falling star after the '77 model year." Barnstarbob (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The article dedicates a poorly sourced section to the car's simulated woodgrain siding... but obfuscates much more relevant, well-sourced information about the car's critical flaws. 842U (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You even change the titles of your discussions.Barnstarbob (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You just don't give up do you. The wood siding is a subsection in the production speed section (with the paint subsection) showing the two problems at that production speed. I guess you can't figure that out; and it WILL stay as per discussion (Oh you didn't participate).

References

Very impressive I've got over 100 in the article. Most of those are from people who TEST cars- Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track, etc. (and I don't mean the .com variety) But of course we want people's opinions. We just can't write our own, so keep YOUR opinions out of the article. Regards Barnstarbob (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead is a general overview of the article. It lists the car's history from intro to its current status. It is not misleading, simply an overview which is what a lead is supposed to be. It states the car's main known flaws that led to its cancellation and current status. The lead will not be a laundry list of all the criticism the car has had. Criticisms are not all facts. That's why we don't frame the criticism and draw conclusions. The Criticism and Problem Areas are in two huge sections. The Corvette is 50 years old and the article lead is smaller that the Vega which lived to be 7. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

Framing Criticism ruins neutrality of article

The Vega's "legacy" is not based on Time magazines assessment, Sorry... nice try. Just because Time in 1990 stated the Vega crash results as unfavorable doesn't mean the criticism can be framed to say the Vega has safety flaws. Time's article quote and URL is listed in Criticisms, moved from lead. STOP FRAMING THE CRITICISM.

These more current examples (in Reception-one in praise and one in Criticism) from a main auto source MOTOR TREND-none of these general statements list poor engineering or safety flaws.

Motor Trend in its 50th Anniversary issue, published September 1999 said, "The Vega seemed well placed to set the standard for subcompacts in the 70s, but it was troubled by one of the most vulnerable Achilles heels in modern automotive history; an alloy four-cylinder engine block that self destructed all too easily, and all too often. Once the word got out the damage was done, even though the engine had been revamped. The Vega became a falling star after the '77 model year.

Motor Trend Classic magazine in the Fall 2010 issue featured a 1973 Vega GT in a retrospective comparison test. Frank Markus, Technical Director of Motor Trend said, "Surviving Vegas are like a fossil record of everything that was wrong with the American auto industry circa 1970, but well-maintained examples are also great looking, nice-driving, economical classics—like Baltic Ave. with a Hotel, the best ones can be had for $10K or less."

See anything about poor engineering here or the car was poorly designed or the car has safety flaws or is unsafe? I think Motor Trend would have stated it in these recent summations on the Vega. STOP FRAMING THE CRITICISM like the internet does.

842U You reminded me not to frame the praise or criticism so you go ahead and frame everything you added to the article. Nothing was deleted that you added to the article but the framing of the criticism was removed. It's now listed without your opinions or conclusions. Your framing of the material to voice your opinions and AGENDA (he who accuses is usually guilty) will not stand, and the article will remain neutral. Barnstarbob (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Article problems

My sense is this article is dominated by one contributor who is very enthusiastic about the Vega car. There are pluses and minuses regarding this enthusiasm. A big plus is that there is a terrific level of detail about this subject so that people seeking to learn about it will have much information at their disposal; this is freely given; Wikipedia benefits by these contributions. But there are minuses too: other contributors are blocked from giving their contributions (for example, I added four references from respected publications; two were deleted soon thereafter; I expect the remaining two to be deleted in the next few weeks); there is only one viewpoint (somewhat positively tilted towards the car which has been widely seen as one of the worst American cars ever built). What's happened as a result is that while there are many references, most are uncheckable since they lack inline citations; this prevents other Wikipedians from quickly verifying the information content in this article. So it is hard to ensure the article's authenticity and accuracy. The biggest minus is that the sole contributor hurts himself or herself, since he or she doesn't get to benefit from the wisdom of others here at Wikipedia. What I've found, over time, is that the HUGE benefit of Wikipedia is having other sharp, responsible contributors offering their views -- pluses as well as minuses -- that is, I can learn from others. And that's the huge minus here -- that the sole contributor doesn't get to learn from us. End of sermon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, I'd like you to review the warnings you've been given in the past for WP:OWN, to re-consider what this is about, and to take a look at what you can do to create an environment where the process of editing on the article is shared and cooperative. I'd also like you to review WP:COI. As it stands, the contributions from other editors have been reduced to individual words here and there -- you may be owning the article again and letting your bias about the car control the article. The article prioritizes trivial matter (giving sections to Wood Siding and Paint Chemistry) while splintering, minimizing and scattering information on serious, substantive matters: recalls, safety problems, poor construction quality, rust, the car's poor legacy. The article is crafted around photos that are from promotional material, advertisements and your own car collection. And while article is interesting and you bring a great deal of enthusiasm to the article, it may be that, as with many COI/OWN issues, you may want to take a break from editing this article. 842U (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have experienced my contributions however small on some articles, deleted...so I know the feeling so I'm not a fan of deleting other Users contributions. As far as the Vega article, few text contributions by other editors have been made to this article in the last two years (probably because the only info available to users on the car is criticism). However many users over the last two years have offered suggestions and there opinions on neutrality, size etc, that I have followed including several new articles with material I had added to this article. It's all in the (now archived) discussions. I will not be accused of any wrong doing here and have contributed much to many articles. See my User page. I know the rules and follow them. All my referenced material for auto articles is presented in a neutral tone with no opinions expressed. This week, book and internet criticism (and a couple of auto press criticisms - also taken off the internet) were added by 842U. I have not deleted any of it, but it should and will be presented in a neutral way with no opinions, agendas or conclusions, as suggested by Wikipedia. And the lead should not have to be changed on a weekly basis, changing the wording around over and over, then back again. The lead is to summarize the article, not to be used as a forum for 842U's opinions or conclusions... I don't think so. Not on Wikipedia anyway. The main objective should be to present the material, however large or small in a neutral, readable way. As far as autos go I find auto publications present vehicles without biased opinion. Internet articles however should be used carefully as they can be unsourced and biased. Specifically, if an editor of Time magazine says in 1990 "The Vega was a poorly engineered car." (an opinion) it could and should be listed as a quote in criticism section. However it should not be used like this - The Vega was a poorly engineered car. (with the Time link). - this is 842 edit...in the lead of the article. This edit takes an opinion, stating it as fact. He did this with several statements in the lead. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, doesn't state opinions as facts, (but they do list opinions) Motor Trend's' opinion in 1971 that the Vega had good engineering I listed two years ago, but not as - The Vega was a well engineered car. - It's listed in Awards section as a quote: "The Vega is our choice for Car of the Year for its engineering excellence, styling..." Now as before, The lead does not say the car was well engineered or poorly engineered, but.. the engineering features are found in Engineering section, the engineering comments of Time are in Criticism and Motor Trend's quote in Awards. There should not be a statement drawn by the Wikipedia User stating his agreement with, or to promote a conclusion from either quote and that's what 842U did, rendering the article not neutral. (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Yes, we all know what's it's like to have our edits undone. You make several good points. And you bring a great deal of enthusiasm and knowledge to this subject. You have also been cited and warned many times for Ownership of this article. You may also have a Conflict of Interest: you edit this article hundreds of times every week, have declared yourself both on and off this site to have written the article, you are a self-declared fan of the vehicle, have structured the article around photographs you have taken, around photographs of your collection of cars and around advertisements and promotional material from the manufacturer – and you introduce a plethora of sources that lack transparency (e.g. sources that don't include the full quotations from which you draw conclusions). The article grows lengthy, but up until a week ago, the article didn't consolidate the car's egregious and serious negative reputation — in the introduction or in any other section of the article. Now you insist on shaping all of that information. Time magazine isn't enough, the books that encapsulate the Vega's legacy aren't enough, etc. And as it stands, the article hasn't begun to cover the Vega's continued serious negative impact on the introductions of the Cobalt, the Cruze and the Volt — widely covered in the automotive press. You are putting yourself in the position of the sole arbiter of what belongs and doesn't belong in the article – about a subject that you are very close to. These pitfalls have been brought up with you before. Please re-consider that other editors can assist in bringing greater credibility to the article by tempering your enthusiasm and closeness to the subject. 842U (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea right, the only edits I've had time for lately is correcting yours. Maybe its time for you to get a warning You have made the article non-neutral with your opinions and biased labels. Stop framing the criticism you have added. And nothing you added was deleted except your opinions and labels. The article will remain neutral as per Wikipedia standards. And stop accusing me of ownership. In the discussion you started but didn't participate in it has become clear there are no ownership problems on my part. I know what the Wikipedia standards are. Maybe it is you that has a problem in addition to the one mentioned in your User page... You seem to have difficulty with Wikipedia policy and standards. I've tried to explain but it's just useless, so at this point.. stop wasting my time. Barnstarbob (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I'm siding with 842U. Regarding neutrality and sources, it's not our job to second-guess Time Magazine editors. If a Time editor says the Vega was poorly engineered, that's what we put in. There are few inline citations here; when I added four solid ones, two were deleted. So, what's going on? Please remember Wikipedia is a cooperative effort. As I said before, a huge benefit is getting the views of others (including 842Us views, my views, Time Magazine, and others). Being open-minded is tough; I urge you, Barnstarbob, to try to be more open-minded here. None of us know everything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, you're missing the point. Motor Trend awards the car for its "engineering excellance" in 1971, and a Time editor says "poorly engineered car" in 1990, but the time quote was used to label the car... NOT NEUTRAL. both qoutes are listed, but neither will used to label the car. ie. poorly engineered or well engineered. 842U labeled the car poorly engineered from one non-automotive sourced quote on its engineering. I have many quotes from automobile press sources on the car's engineering besides MT. like to view some? I'll get back to you... It can fill this discussion page. I might have made an errror on deleted your link. I will return it to the article. I do not delete other contributions, but if it isn't presented in a neutral way it will be tweaked to remove labeling, framing or opinion. (Labeling, opinion and framing praise or criticism renders the article non-neutral). I'm siding with Wikipedia article guidlines for neutrality.(Barnstarbob (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

I owned a Vega. It burned oil. Had to add a quart every couple of hours. No kidding. Time Magazine in 1990 most likely read the Motor Trend 1971 evaluation; at that point, the engine's problems hadn't begun to appear. At any rate, I can't understand you removing or ignoring or burying a reference to Time Magazine when they had people on staff specifically to check facts. (I know somebody who had one of these jobs). If Time said "poorly engineered", trust them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So have I. Both quotes are in the article. Time and Motor Trend's opinions are in Praise and Criticism but neither is used to voice an opinion of an editor from Wikipedia. Regards.(Barnstarbob (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, If you'd like to report me for something, please do. I'm here to contribute and to learn. What isn't working about the Vega article is that there is little room for anyone else to contribute — and you are beholden to the article's subject. You actively discourage others from participating ("stop wasting my time," or just "STOP"). And despite your dedication to the subject of the article — thousands of edits over a period of years — you have overlooked some rather prominent, easy to find information (e.g., the bullited list of sources that appear earlier on this page) that elaborates on the Vega's extreme problems. These sources you want to question... while the article expansively includes advertisements for the car and sections of trivial information based on thin sources (e.g., the fake wood siding, paint chemistry sections). I'd like to courtiously suggest again that you take a break and re-consider what I and others have suggested, you may be owning the article, and you may have a conflict of interest — after your behavior in these areas has been brought to your attention numerious times previously.842U (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You take a break because I'm tired of correcting your errors. I could be doing something more useful. I'm watching your contributions because you obviously aren't familar with Wikipedia's article guidelines and policy on neurality. and STOP framing the criticism you added.(Barnstarbob (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, I accept in good faith what you say about being interested in, even a defender of neutrality. But for several years the article has ballooned to include minute specs of information that are tantalizingly interesting but go nowhere to address the Vega's larger cultural impact. After years of meticulous grooming the article highlighted fake wood siding (with egregiously thin and anecdotal sourcing) while overlooking important credentialed sources that told how the car's wide range of flaws impacted its own success, the success of it's manufacturer and the success of the US auto manufacturing. The Vega is important culturally — but for a lot more than the minutae of its manufacturing and marketing specification. Neutrality has several levels of meaning, and a definitive article on the Vega can't be balanced and overlook the larger story of the car. 842U (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

842A Go write a book then because the "story" on Wikipedia is to be presented in a factual and neutral way. And you haven't figured out how to do that. So write that book then we'll list it under Criticism.(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Discussion

Barnstarbob/Vegabob I notice that you keep reverting the introduction. Please let's keep the discussing the article, it's introduction and how best to proceed. Let's be positive, open, and discuss things here.842U (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, I like where you are headed with the introduction; can it (and the article, e.g., with a section) talk cohesively about how the car's array of problems created another set of problems: for the company, confidence in the US car industry and ramifications for the US industry. These apparently is a seminal part of the car's legacy. 842U (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, this isn't exactly a discussion. Nonetheless, I'll watch and see if you can incorporate the ideas from the other sources. I'm not sure why you're not including the broad array of problems and just focusing on the engine. The recalls were a huge factor in the Vega's reputation, and those were engineering/construction/safety problems. And the rust seems extremely important too. The engine was only one of a series of problems. 842U (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

842A You have added internet and book negative reviews (of which non was deleted), but I have added back the praise previously deleted making the article neutral (again). In addition I have added much Criticsm by auto press to balance the criticism since non of yours actually reviews the car, and is mostly retrospective. The only problem with the article is your persistance in rendering the lead paragraph non-neutral. STOP FRAMING CRITICISM WITH YOUR OPINION. (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

COI Tag

The article has been largely written by someone very close to the subject of the article. The tag is completely appropriate, and until the issue is resolved here or on the COI notice board page, the tag is important; it lets the reader know that the article may have a pro-Vega bias.842U (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree 100%-the article has been cited as neutral for more than two years in previous discussions. Currently non-neutral framing of criticism by 842U has been applied to the lead of the article (who has tagged the article non-neutral). His edit of the lead renders the article non-neutral. The tag goes now. (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Tag stays. More tags need to be added -- neutrality, reliable sources. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have participated in several discussions and have not been accused of non-neutral contributions nor has the aricle been cited as non-neutral for two years, nor has ANY Criticsm added by 842A in Criticism section been deleted, but the tag goes. The article is being tagged by the User rendering the article non-neutral due to opinions and framed criticsm in the lead paragraph. And my closeness to the subject doesn't mean I can't follow Wikipedia's policy of neutrailty. No matter how much negative criticism is added, it will not be framed with 842A's opinions. (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia is a cooperative project. Other people (translation: me, 842U, others) have a say here about this subject. No one person can own and dominate an article. IF you wish to have full control over a subject, consider writing a Google knol on the Vega. That way, you can avoid having to consider the opinions of others. If you wish to write in Wikipedia, you must learn to consider the views of others, to be polite, to assume good faith, and try to be open-minded. It is my opinion that the article has numerous issues: neutrality problems, overemphasis of unimportant details, and issues regarding references (most are uncheckable -- few inline citations.) I added four inline citations from respectable publications a week ago; you've deleted three. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again. I have not deleted ANY contributions he posted. However he also has posted his opinions with some of the same URL references in the lead. This will not stand. Any information on the subject, Praise or Criticism will be presented without framing or opinion. And opinions on the subject aren't even supposed to be discussed in the disussion page. It's non-productive. I could be working on articles instead. This has been covered in a lengthy (archived) discussion he started, but didn't participate in. It has been determined in the discussion I have not used ownership and have not deleted contributions to this article, nor did I revert any deletions by other Users during the discussion, nor have I made any attempt to or contribute to or render this (or any article) non-neutral in any way. And, the article is non-neutral and is not biased except for his opinions expressed in his constant reediting of the lead paragraph. It's a complete, neutral article of which I followed all opinions expressed for its improvement (size, additional sections, splits) for two years, including Problems section (which was added two years ago) and more recently as in project discussion, three new articles I made from this one to reduce its size - a separate Chevrolet Cosworth Vega article, a separate Pontiac Astre article, and General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine article - the three topics were large sections formally in this article. And in the discussion many Users contributed their ideas and suggestions to which I followed, and some made changes to the article and I did not revert one single change by any User. 842A is the only User upsetting the neutrality of the article (isolated to the lead paragraph), and he posted the tag! His internet and book sourced criticism added to Reviews is presented with neutrality, but not in the lead paragraph, which he is using to express his opinion. The criticism must be presented without framing or bias of the User. The lead paragraph will remain neutral as is the rest of the article. Please review the the archived discussion in the Automobile Project discussions.[1] (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO the final three paragraphs of the intro section are unnecessary. What I think this article needs is a "Legacy" section which can serve as a more balanced way of assessing the Vega's place in automotive history than the current Praise/Criticism format. ObtuseAngle (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Consider it done. The quotes were only put in to keep the lead neutral. 842A keeps listing every piece of negative criticism in the lead with his framing and opinion. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Ok ObtuseAngle, paragraphes removed. It has been returned to a shortened version of the lead used in the last article discussion. (Now it looks like other Wikipedia article's lead paragraphs). If you think anything else is not needed in the lead, please advise. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, how does it make the article stronger?(Barnstarbob (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, this is a group effort. I like the idea that you consider a google knol -- you've tried both here on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia to take credit for this article &ndash and that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is about. No one gets the credit. As for the article, I'd suggest an article that goes less far to include trivia and quite a bit further to include the information that's so readily available on the car's ultimate impact – and then nutshell the article in the introduction. Barring that, include the legacy up front, in the intro, where it wont' be overlooked, and make sure it's well sourced. Either way, the COI tag is fitting. 842U (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

842A, Nice try and welcome to the group. I've been working with the group for two years on this and take only partial credit. Check the archived discussions here and under Project Automobiles. then you can make a judgement if I've worked on it as a group effort. Again, nice try. (Barnstarbob (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

My vote is that the article was written by someone with a clear COI and that they have taken advantage of the someonewhat marginal interest in the topic to OWN the article.842U (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

842A, You are the one who thinks he OWNS it. You start a discussion in Project Automobiles, then you don't participate, then you proceed to go against everything that was discussed. I'm following that discussion and the suggestions of the Users from it and the discussion from two years ago as well. You are following your own agenda and are clearly in need of help. Stop accusing me of ownership and conflict of interest. I have all the referenced text, Do you think I would if I didn't like the subject? It has helped the article, not hurt it. You can only pull from the internet, so if my contributions weren't in the article it would be a biased article, wouldn't it? as just about everything on the internet about the car is biased and opinionated. Add whatever trash and criticism you like...I added plenty of criticism myself, more than you, from printed matter, plenty of it. You want to say I hurt the article with close interest in the subject? Consider this..One of a your few auto press contributions, (in criticism) a 1971 Car and Driver article, is the only C&D Vega article archived on the internet. My C&D Vega articles fill a 2-inch binder. (I have binder of Vega articles for each auto publication) Point? Gives a more complete picture when there is more than one, don't you think? know why? The review on the the car a year later didn't site some of those problems with the car because development continued yearly as this article shows. Oh by the way, I added a few lines of C&D praise from that article in the Praise section just to balance things out...You know, keep it unbiased and in context like when the whole article is read. How come its never posted on the internet C&D's Vega won one of their SCCA reader challenge races, or that C&D selected the Vega for its Tire Testing in 1972 & 1974 for its handling. This is Wikipedia, not Car Talk.com. There are many C&D entries in the article, as well as Motor Trend, Road and Track, Road Test and Sports Car Graphic with Praise and Criticism on the car, all not available to Wikipedia readers anywhere since they were published, unless one collects 40 year-old articles, like me. .. a car enthusiast just might want to know what Road and Track's opinion was having actually tested the car, not just what Time's opinion is in 1993. (Has that editor even seen one?) Point is the article has hands on reviews and historical perspective, and its presented in a neutral way. the car's problems are half the story. This article gives the complete story. The six years of development and improvements to the car are missing from retrospective accounts that have asserted a "worst car" opinion. One thing is clear. It was a decent car towards the end of its production run. The body integrity improvements, the improvements to the engine and cooling system and the 60,000 mile engine warranty, the completely redesigned rear suspension and upgraded brakes. In this article you will find that information. And I've added retrospective auto press comments up to 2010 including Motor Trend's and others with their current assessments of the car giving as you would say, "the real truth." (By the way you're non-auto book article reviews are quite good for the article and you are commended for some good research and your hard work). Anything I added to this article is presented in a neutral way without bias or opinions from me. I've worked on it as a group effort from the beginning with other Users, most offering suggestions. I do not delete contributions. You're only kidding yourself if you think I hurt the article. Oh, and cut it about the big picture and the real truth bull. The Problems section has been in the article for two years. The facts pertaining to all aspects of the car, good and bad should be more important for an encyclopedia article than reviews, as reviews are a combination of fact and opinion which can be biased depending on its source; nonetheless the reviews here are unmatched anywhere in one article. This is the only place with the facts and the reviews presented without bias or opinion from its (Wikipedia) editors, and it will stay that way as per Wikipedia standards. (Barnstarbob (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and neither are 'Top ten worst cars evar as written by a Prius driving society journalist' articles a substitute for good research and well referenced, easily verifiable, reliable sources. If doing good research is 'taking advantage' of those people who have no interest in the subject beyond some fluff, Wikipedia needs some more, stat. Nevard (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's ok in discussion page formatting to restart the sequencing; the point is not have discussion entries get progressively skinnier; it's to keep them offset from each other. 842U (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, You've used your own photographs. I have no photos of mine in the article. You've used photos of your cars in the article. I have no photos of my cars in the article. You've built the article around promotional photos from General Motors and Chevrolet. I haven't. You've reverted all of my edits as well as pretty much everyone else's. And you only include the input of others when it aligns with your pro-Vega bias. Do any research on the Vega today and sources paint a very clear picture of the car as poorly engineered, poorly built and damaging to it's makers. And still you don't include that information in the article. You can accuse me of Ownership if you'd like, there's no evidence. Your COI is clearly imprinted in the article. And even if we just look at this discussion here, clearly others agree. Furthermore, your statement "You are following your own agenda and are clearly in need of help." is a personal attack. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks on editors, and I certainly will not either. 842U (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

842A Aren't we on the defense now. How do you like it for a change. Ok, You need help with your editing - hope that's not too personal. You are not following Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality and prose. Now, (here we go again) I have contributed over 700 images to Wikipedia. I took 18 photos of the article's 51 images. There are 28 GM and Chevrolet images; the rest are charts and Common images. 4 of them are of cars I own. That is 4 out of 51 images. You must be kidding. Your accusations are again, flawed and biased (like some of your editing). the photo of my Vega Panel truck was included in the gallery only because there was no rear shot of a wagon (or panel) from any source. Without that image included, a rear view of the wagon/panel would not be in the article. My other car, a Millionth Vega, is featured alone, and with the Vega's competitors from the 2010 Motor Trend Classic magazine's Gremlin-Vega-Pinto comparison photo shoot, of which is a free-use photo taken by me, with my Cannon camera. Obviously Motor Trend's photos taken and used in the magazine would not qualify for free use or inclusion here. These are useful for the article, as they show the car with its competitors (for the first time in over 35 years), and images of the Vega milestone car, past or present, are not available elsewhere for free use inclusion. Just because I happen to own that car is no justification for not using its image, which was already concluded in your discussion. (you just don't give up, do you?...more rehash.) All the article's free images are high quality and depict the sections and text of the article. When I started work on the article in Feb 2009 there was one image, the only one in Commons. Clearly since the article's inception - August 2004, images were not available to Users, with only one included in the article for five years. There wasn't even enough text to include additional images, for years, although a gallery could've been used, but wasn't. Well, images were available to me and I used the highest quality photos and images to depict the text I added to the article. This has been covered in discussions; it has been determined that the images used throughout the article are beneficial to the article whether I took some of them or not. Stop beating a dead horse with your accusations. Now, again, I do not delete other User contributions, and have not deleted your actual contribution to this article - mostly negative non automotive sourced criticism to which I've added auto press criticism, and reverted my deleted auto sourced praise. However, it is you that has made unjustifiable deletions. You've deleted complete sections on a whim without notice. Like I said before, The article will remain neutral and unbiased. All the factual information, positive - Awards and Praise sections, and negative - Problems and Criticism sections explain the Cars history - and its status - while it was being produced and sold, as well as its current status. There isn't bias or lack of neutrality as concluded by the discussions. The facts (and reviews), past and present are presented in a neutral way without opinions expressed by any User as per Wikipedia standards. And stop attaching Vegabob to my Username to "frame" your case. Framing isn't beneficial in articles or discussions of the articles. It has been determined two years ago and in current project discussion that my knowledge of the subject does not conflict with Wikipedia's article objective of neutrality, and I've followed all suggestions in discussions to that end. You are a Wikipedia User, as I am. You should spend more time contributing to, or improving articles, instead of wasting time here, rehashing your failed agenda. You should've participated in the Project Automobile discussion you started. Nonetheless, clearly the outcome of the discussion wasn't to your liking. Based on the lack of interest or feedback this time, it is also clear Users have probably had enough of your endless, unproductive and unwarranted accusations. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob/Vegabob: It is against the rules of Wikipedia for you to edit my edits. You know this as it's been pointed out to you repeatedly. Just because you changed your username from Vegabob to Barnstarbob doesn't mean your conflict of interest nolonger exists. 842U (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

842A My Username was Vegavairbob and it was changed because of YOU. You took advantage and saw a way to claim conflict of interest; too bad no one agrees with you. Stop addressing me as Vegabob. It's not helping you. (Barnstarbob (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob/Vegavairbob warning

Barnstarbob/Vegavairbob This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• For the record, you will be blocked, the next time you call someone a pain in the ass.
• For the record, there are numerous other editors that have noticed the historical pattern with conflict of interest-ownership-disruptive that you've exhibited in this article. (e.g.: certainly recall your WP:OWNership issues). (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

842A warning

842A -

• Stop accusing me of ownership and conflict of interest, and wasting everyone's time rehashing your unjustified accusations that were proven false in the Projects Automobile discussion.
• Stop flagging the article.

The current opinion is the article is neutral (as before) and there are no ownership issues then or now on my part. There have been two Users that have accused me in two years, including you, of which it was determined these were false. You wanna play games here..842A, You are the one who thinks he OWNS it. You start a discussion in Project Automobiles, then you don't participate, then you proceed to go against everything that was discussed. I'm following that discussion and the suggestions of the Users from it and the discussion from two years ago as well. Stop accusing me of ownership and conflict of interest. I have all the referenced text, Do you think I would if I didn't like the subject? It has helped the article, not hurt it. I've worked on it as a group effort from the beginning with other Users, most offering suggestions. I do not delete contributions. You're only kidding yourself if you think I hurt the article. The Problems section has been in the article for two years. The facts pertaining to all aspects of the car, good and bad should be more important for an encyclopedia article than reviews, as reviews are a combination of fact and opinion which can be biased depending on its source; nonetheless the reviews here are unmatched anywhere in one article. Your sole contributions to the article - non-automotive sourced criticism, was not deleted, nor were any other contributions from any User. I've added much automotive press sourced criticism past and present from 1970-2010, and reverted the deleted praise to keep the article neutral. If anyone is looking to render the article non-neutral or one sided, it's you.

A sampling below from the WikiProject Chevrolet Vega Discussion you initiated to accuse me of ownership, but did not participate in, concludes there is no ownership or conflict of interest issues on my part.

• Agreed, this is not the stubborn Vegavairbob I wrestled with, & I'm glad of it. I like this one much better. :D (I'm no angel, either, so... ;p) And moving the Wankel content to its own page IMO solves that one. I asked Bob this, & let me ask here, since there's still a problem: is there a page where the "aluminum block" section of Vega could be moved to? IMO, it's too OT to stay in, but too worthwhile to just junk. TREKphiler 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. A paragraph of the section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also I moved large Wankel section to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. I made a few edits as well to the smaller version. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• As for Bob's adding his own pix, I don't see the beef. I added mine to custom car because there weren't any. If there are better ones (not just different ones...), replace them. TREKphiler 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

I do feel that Barnstarbob has managed to lose most or all of the ownership issues that were previously problematic. He is still a bit hotheaded at times (as correctly stated in the previous section), and I would suggest endeavouring to remedy this. Nonetheless, I think that these problems are best dealt with on Barnstarbob's own userpage and not here on the Chevy Vega page. I would like to separate any possible issues with Chevrolet Vega from the problems of User:Barnstarbob entirely, which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours:  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll say this: the behaviors are not only previously problematic but currently problematic. And readers deserve to know the quality of article is suspect:

• Is there a single sentence in this article that was written by anyone other than one editor? There might be a few, possibly.
• The current situation, where one editor is attacking other editors that disagree, most recently calling another editor a pain in the ass, after telling that editor that "he need help," etc.? That seems fairly current.
• What does it mean when one editor, who recently ignored this discussion page, demands that others editors stop editing the article?
• What does it mean when an editor who has repeatedly attacked other editors and openly, directly and plainly discourages them from editing the article, regularly denigrates other's contributions as 'wasting his time?'
• What does it mean when one editor, who has edited the article hundreds of times a day for years, fails to include saliently information widely available on the subject of the article (that the car developed an extremely negative reputation, severely negatively impacted not only it's manufacturer, possibly the American car industry and to this day affecting the manufacturer's new car introductions – see bullited list above) while including and celebrating anecdotally sourced fan-cruft trivia (application of the car's fake wood siding).
• What does it mean when an editor includes his own photographs in the article and has included photographs of his own car and has included numerous promotional photographs from the manufacturer and color advertisements for the subject of the article.
• From reading wp:own, these points are the very evidence of COI/Ownership – and they are happening currently.

The point of having the discussions here, is to alert readers of the article to the problematic possibility the article has been crafted by a single editor without input from others — especially when that same editor won't let the COI tag remain at the head of the article – and not on a user's talk page, where information that may reflects poorly on that editor can be more readily removed from view. 842U (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction and legacy

The article obfuscates salient truths about the Vega. The car had a wide range of serious problems: engineering, safety, rust, failure-prone engine. And the car has a legacy that is very negative. Just as the Edsel article introduces the car by saying "it has become synonmyous with failure", the Vega article to be broadly informative about the car needs to address it's serious damage to its manufacturer, it's reputation as a failure, and it's negative impact on the American auto industry. I will be including, a legacy section in the article based on readily available, notable sources (842U (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)):

• 1990 Time Magazine noted "The bad reputation spread in 1970 with the Chevrolet Vega, a poorly engineered car notorious for rust and breakdowns."
• 1971 Time Magazine noted: "Films of those tests were shown at a Washington press conference last week by Institute President William Haddon Jr., former director of the National Highway Safety program. They might badly shake many buyers of small new cars, which now account for one-third of sales. In some crashes, the small car was smashed into a pile of twisted junk barely recognizable as an auto, while the bigger car sustained relatively moderate damage. In the Chevrolet crash, a dummy placed in the Impala only struck its head against the dashboard, but the dummy in the Vega was beheaded by a section of the hood that was hurled back through the windshield."
• 1993 In his book In the Rings of Saturn, Joe Sherman said that "by it's third recall, ninety five percent of all Vegas manufactured before May 1972 had critical safety flaws." adding that "reviews of the car noted its tendency to skid violently in sudden stops." The author said the Vega's "checkered history only reinforced the belief that GM made inferior small cars. This legacy would prove far more important than any direct impact the Vega would have on GM's profits."
• 1974 In her book, Paradise Lost: The Decline of the Auto-Industrial Age, noted historian Emma Rothschild said the Vega was "an extreme case in the capacity for inspiring and then dashing consumer expectations."
• 2000 The Vega placed second in the Car Talk Worst car of the Millennium poll.
• 2003 In their book Unusually Stupid Americans, authors Ross and Kathryn Petras said the Vega "didn't go all that fast, consumed a lot of oil, the aluminum engine warped and the car tended to fall apart in accidents, if it didn't collapse from metal fatigue."
• 2005 The Vega was voted the least-loved American car in a 2005 MSNBC readers poll.
• 2007 Paul Niedermeyer at The Truth About Cars said in his article Chevy Volt: Vega Redux?, "The prolonged wait for the Chevrolet Volt reminds me uncomfortably of waiting for the Chevrolet Vega to appear. For GM’s sake, the outcome had better be radically different. Because no one single vehicle did more damage to GM then the highly-hyped Vega." Adding: "The Vega became a cause of national interest: if Americans could beat the Russians to the moon, GM could damn well beat back the imports" and "the standard three-speed stick was just as much a throwback to the fifties."
• 2008 Popular Mechanics, in the article 10 Cars that Damaged General Motors said "the Vega was actually a sales success. But ultimately that meant there were just that many more people disappointed by the Vega. By the mid-1980s, Vegas were being junked so aggressively that some salvage yards in Southern California had signs up saying they wouldn't accept any more. When even the junkyard won't take a car, that's trouble." They also said: "Throw in haphazard build quality and sheetmetal that you could practically hear rusting away, and the Vega truly rates as one of GM's great debacles."
• 2008 Rick Newman, writing for U.S. News's article The Chevy Vega: the Worst Detroit Car Ever? said "It sold well. Then the body started to rust. The aluminum engine started to warp. There were engine fires and mounting recalls. Horrified buyers fled, and General Motors killed the car by the late 1970s."
• 2008 Newman, also writing for U.S. News in the article Why America Is Shunning GM said of the Pinto and Vega, "those cars and numerous follow-ons now wear badges of horror identifying them as some of the worst cars in history—with millions of owners to bear witness" and "the Vega came with a cheap aluminum engine that couldn't withstand its own heat and often warped or melted before the car reached 50,000 miles." and "In short, bottom-rung benchmarks were set. Millions of customers—many from families with a long history of loyalty to Ford or Chevrolet or Chrysler—swore off domestics forever."
• 2009 In their column The 10 Most Embarrassing Award Winners in Automotive History, editors at CarandDriver.com said "It’s been 38 years since the Vega appeared, and the stink still won’t wash off."
• 2010 In the article The Chevrolet Vega--What Went Wrong? on Carlustblog.com, says after describing the Vega's engine problems: "And the fun didn't stop there. The engine's vibrations also caused the screws holding the Rochester carburetor together to work loose. When they got loose enough, the carb would start coming apart and raw gasoline would flow into the cylinders. Some of that gas ended up pooling in the muffler, where the heat would ignite it, causing backfires and worse. Sometimes the gas would leak in the other direction, dripping down over the outside of the hot engine block and causing a fire." Adding: "The worst part for GM was that, as bad as it was, the Vega fiasco wasn't life-threatening. Sure, there were millions of dollars in losses from the turmoil at Lordstown and the warranty claims and recalls, but GM could afford it. In 1977, as the last Vega rolled off the line to end this shameful chapter in automotive history, GM was still one of the most powerful industrial corporations on the planet, and it still had around 45% of the U.S. vehicle market. It was easy to just attribute it all to bad luck and ignore the underlying problems."
• 2010 In his book Generation Busted, author Alan Zemek said "Chevrolet's answer to the Japanese car, left it with a black eye."
• 2010 Editors at Popular Mechanics magazine called it "the car that nearly destroyed GM."
• 2010 Newsweek magazine called the Vega "famously crappy."

Descrition of edit

• Lead paragraph reverted to shorter version with present tense as per discussion - "Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger." ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

notes: Framed criticism removed. The car's noteworthy issues retained for introduction. All issues are listed in Problems and Criticism sections as approved in two discussions. Shorter lead paragraph approved in discussion.

• In Criticism - Shortly after the car's discontinuation, in her 1974 book...- [car discontinued in 1977.] changed to - In her 1974 book Paradise Lost: The Decline of the Auto-Industrial Age,

• Legacy reverted to - Criticism sections by source. 842A You don't select which sources shape the car's "legacy." It is not determined souly from Time, Newsweek and internet web sites as you have framed it. The car's problems and all reliable sources form the "legacy" including auto experts from automotive sources first and foremost. Using only your non-automotive and internet criticism for the car's "legacy" was biased, non-neutral (and from biased sources). There are current Motor Trend and Collectible Automobile reviews in Criticism as well, explaining the car's "legacy". ALL Criticism back under Reception- and a neutral balance of Praise and Criticism remains. 842A - This article, with the additional non-automotive sourced Criticism you added, will remain neutral without bias from you as per Wikipedia article standards. I told you, you will not upset the neutrality of the article no matter how much trash you add.

• Several non-relevant or inconsequential internet criticism, fluff and polls deleted as per discussion

"and neither are 'Top ten worst cars evar as written by a Prius driving society journalist' articles a substitute for good research and well referenced, easily verifiable, reliable sources. If doing good research is 'taking advantage' of those people who have no interest in the subject beyond some fluff, Wikipedia needs some more, stat. Nevard (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• (1)not relevant criticism of the car - thetruthaboutcars.com from Volt article Chevy Volt: Vega Redux?] fluff - "The Vega became a cause of national interest: if Americans could beat the Russians to the moon, GM could damn well beat back the imports"....
• (2) not relevant criticsm of the car - Newsweek from Cruise article "UAW Dispute Tarnishes Launch of Chevy Cruise" internet fluff - "referring to the Vega as famously crappy."
• (3)not verifiable internet fluff. Car Talk 2000 Worst car of the Millennium poll
• (4) not relevant criticism and fluff - CarandDriver.com The 10 Most Embarrassing Award Winners in Automotive History, - "It’s been 38 years since the Vega appeared, and the stink still won’t wash off."
• (5)Repeated from Problems section Carlustblog.com repeats, almost word for word, Chevrolet engineer's factual account in Problems section and is irrelevant repeating it in criticism, "The engine's vibrations also caused the screws holding the Rochester carburetor together to work loose.... remaining text is not relevant criticism of the car and fluff - "There were millions of dollars in losses from the turmoil at Lordstown and the warranty claims and recalls, but GM could afford it. In 1977, as the last Vega rolled off the line to end this shameful chapter in automotive history, GM was still one of the most powerful industrial corporations on the planet, and it still had around 45% of the U.S. vehicle market. It was easy to just attribute it all to bad luck and ignore the underlying problems."
• (6)not relevant criticism of car and fluff Popular Mechanics.com "By the mid-1980s, Vegas were being junked so aggressively that some salvage yards in Southern California had signs up saying they wouldn't accept any more. When even the junkyard won't take a car, that's trouble.
• (7) not relevant criticism of car -Money U.S. News.com "Millions of customers—many from families with a long history of loyalty to Ford or Chevrolet or Chrysler—swore off domestics forever."

• flag removed as per discussions..."again I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation." ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I would like to separate any possible issues with Chevrolet Vega from the problems of User:Barnstarbob entirely, which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And PLEASE Stop contantly reposting and crowding everyone's talk pages, and this discussion page, with your non-auto sourced criticism and internet fluff list. The relevant Criticism on the list belongs in Chevrolet Vega#Criticism, without framing and without your opinions or tags for the article to remain neutral. (Barnstarbob (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob / Vegavairbob: It's not really for you to tell me or any other editors what to do here: we are collaborators whether you like it or not.

• The material that I added to the article was not mine. There is no rule that information must be "auto sourced."
• The sources that I added to the article are relevant.
• The car's legacy is incontrovertible: it's a failed product that damaged the US small car industry and it's regularly excoriated as one of Detroit's most miserable excrescencies. Like the Edsel, the Pinto and many other notorious vehicles, the Vega's legacy is already in place -- and like those vehicles, the article needs to address it head on. The undue attention the article places on puffery and trivia needs to be trimmed – these inflations bury and obfuscate the most salient points about the car, whitewashing its "famously crappy" (Newsweek) reputation.
• There is no scarcity of time or space when it comes to discussing this article.
• Even just looking at this current discussion page, it's clear there are many editors who agree there are serious problems with the article, including the oft cited COI and OWN issues.
• Please also consider the preponderance of other editors that have cited the opportunities to improve the article.
• Please reconsider all the warnings you've received and our ability to collaborate. 842U (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

842A I'm not telling you to do, or not to do anything", but YOUR opinions will be deleted from this article as per Wikipedia standards whether you like it or not... count on it.

• You have framed your criticism entries by labeling them.
• no scarcity of time or space? That's a switch.. In several months you complained article was too large, then you proceeded to delete complete sections including Origin, and Praise (in Reception), and several images, then started discussion article was too large, then you double size of lead paragraph, then you add countless amounts of biased, internet fluff. Then ignore EVERY suggestion of other editors. Great editing.
• All editors suggestions are used in my lead intro edit and Criticism edit reviewd in two discussions.
• I know you won't consider the warnings you have received. I'm not even going to ask anymore.
• I never suggested all Criticism should be auto press sourced.
• Some of the material you used is biased unverifiable internet fluff as per discussion and some of it was not relevant to the car itself (see above).
• your comment - "it's a failed product that damaged the US small car industry and it's regularly excoriated as one of Detroit's most miserable excrescencies" is YOUR OPINION . YOU CAN"T USE YOUR OPINION in this Wikipedia article..nor should you frame internet criticism (Time.com, etc) by labeling it "legacy". All have been retained in article as Criticism entries because that's all they are....Criticism.
• Save YOUR opinions and criticism for reader feedback in those internet sourced fluff articles.

The Article's Objective

An articles objective on Wikipedia is to provide concise information about the subject without biased opinion or framing of the subject from Wikipedia Users. Although opinions of many sources are included in Reception, the unbiased summations of quality sources are important here, as usually an unbiased view gives a complete picture in context with no information missing or distorted. There is too much emphasis on opinions of internet bloggers and writers. FACTS ARE FIRST. ALL THE FACTS. WITHOUT BIAS. The cars vices are mentioned in Development, Engineering and in detail in Problems, and then the Critisism of those problems are in Reception. (and...the cars virtues are presented, as well, in Reception) The vast information is presented with FORM. and with NEUTRALITY critical in an enyclopedia article. This is not a web blog.

A few examples of (non biased) criticism "summations" presented in the article without User framing or User opinion expressed. Quality material worthy of Wikipedia, not internet fluff.

• In Development section - Chevrolet paid a price in its rush to introduce the car with the other 1971 models. Tests which should have been at the proving grounds were preformed by customers necessitating numerous piecemeal "fixes" by dealers. Chevrolet's "bright star", received an enduring black eye despite a continuing development program which eventually alleviated most of these initial shortcomings.
• In Design and Engineering - Plagued by vibrations and noisy operation and prone to overheating, the engine definitely did not live up to the Vega's potential.By 1974, the overheating was gone, the vibrations were a thing of the past and the noise had been reduced to an acceptable level.
• In DeLorean influence - "This program produced a hostile relationship between the corporate staffs, which essentially designed and engineered the car, and Chevrolet Division which was to sell it.
• In Problems -Collectible Automobile said in April 2000 "Although the Vega sold well from the beginning, the buying public soon started to question the car's quality. It had every right to; It came out prematurely and still had a lot of glitches." Further development and upgrades continued throughout the car's seven year production run, addressing its engine and cost-related issues.
• In Problems - Five years later, after GM had spent millions to replace thousands of sets of rusted-out Vega fenders in the field, the plastic fender liners were reinstated as a mid-model change during the 1974 model year, but rust damage also affected the rocker panels, the door bottoms, the area beneath the windshield, and the primary body structure above the rockers.."
• In Problems - Under a revised 50,000 mi (80,467 km) engine warranty for 1971–1975 Vegas, an owner with a damaged engine had a choice to have the short block replaced with a brand new unit or a rebuilt steel-sleeved unit. This proved costly for Chevrolet. GM engineer Fred Kneisler maintaines that too much emphasis had been put on overheating problems versus the real culprits: brittle valve stem seals and too-thin piston plating. Regardless of the cause, damaged cylinder walls were common.
• In Problems - Despite its lack of success with the Vega, the liner-less aluminum/silicon engine technology that GM and Reynolds developed turned out to be sound. Mercedes-Benz and Porsche both use sleeveless aluminum engines today, the basic principles of which were developed for the Vega engine.
• In Criticism - Motor Trend in its 50th Anniversary Issue September 1999 said, "The Vega seemed well placed to set the standard for subcompacts in the 70s, but it was troubled by one of the most vulnerable Achilles heels in modern automotive history; an alloy four-cylinder engine block that self destructed all too easily, and all too often. Once the word got out the damage was done, even though the engine had been revamped."
• In Criticism -Collectible Automobile said in April 2000, "The Chevy Vega has become a symbol of all the problems Detroit faced in the 70's." "Ed Cole and the corporation initially had high hopes for the Vega, But then, little by little, everything that could go wrong, did. Had its big engineering and manufacturing plans succeeded, the last laugh might have belonged to Chevy." "The greatest toll came in the damage it did to Chevrolet's and GM's reputation. The other effect the Vega had on GM was to help make the corporation conservative, and dull its will to lead."

842A -If the above material were missing in the article, your contributions, non-auto book and internet criticism, would surly render this article non-neutral, (like most website articles on the subject are). With both, the article remains neutral. This Wikipedia article will remain factual and neutral. Although retained in the Criticism section, internet sourced criticism (blogs, and web artciles) are biased, non-neutral, with information sometimes presented out of context or incomplete as they are often written by a "non expert" with limited access to referenced information, or information is "conveniently" withheld for the sake of effect or controvsery, rendering them only moderately useful. This article with well over 100 references, I'm sure, has helped to change that "shortage of information" and will continue to be the reference for ALL the information, facts (and reception) offered on the subject without Wikipedia User opinion. (Barnstarbob (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

The problem with all of this Barnstar/Vega/Corvairbob is that a single editor isn't the sole arbiter of what belongs in an article. Wikipedia is designed to encourage incorporation of disparate viewpoints. There are ways to do this. There are even ways to incorporate public opinion polls and inflammatory information. And it can enhance the quality and credibility of the article. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the behavior of attacking other editors, calling them liars and discouraging their edits – while reaching out to individual other 'favored' editors rather than open discussion boards to discuss the article. Newsweek, Time, Popular Mechanics and the books by well known historians are not fluff. But despite all the protestations, the lowest irony remains: the article includes poorly sourced micro-cruft like the the fake wood siding episode, photographs of the prime editor's own cars and advertisements for the car -- while essentially obfuscating and white-washing the car's well-known and marred legacy. 842U (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

842A My Username is currently Barnstarbob (after the twelve I awarded to Users) Do you have a problem with that, or confused? I mentioned your contributions were good for the article. Now, it has been concluded in the Project discussion that one User making most of the contribution to an article is not an issue of ownership or conflict of interest. Many changes, splits, sections were from suggestions of other Users that cared to offer there preferences (instead of actually making the edit) and some have made the edits themselves including a few section deletions. Others were reduced in size (I split three sections making three new articles) as per the discussion, including Pontiac Astre and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega. I have followed ALL suggestions from Users in two discussions nor is it a problem with Users that 4 of the 51 images are of my vehicles. And again, in the discussion a User said to keep Woodgrain film. That's 2 to 1 it stays. Why can't you go by consensus. Not everyone is going to agree with what you want or don't want in the article. In that case a User said keep it. I think it should stay too so, what is the problem? Is it that important to you? The ads depict the statement Chevrolet promoted the awards won by the car which haven't been seen by readers in over 30 years. There were more ads in the article which were deleted - only two remain, Problem? There is no whitewashing. The discussion two years ago suggested a full section on Problems and there is no praise uttered anywhere in the article except in Awards and Reception (under Praise), all from auto sourced publications from 1970-2010 (along with the Criticism from 1970-2010) And that makes the article NEUTRAL. The whole story. Not a one-sided internet blog.(Barnstarbob (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

I appreciate your saying my contributions are useful. And in good faith, I'll assume you're saying that because you mean it. I look forward one day to actually seeing my contributions in the article. And seriously, whatever you want to call yourself is fine with me, but calling you Barnstar/Vega/Corvairbob reflects the history of different names you've used here on Wikipedia – which is germain to an article beset with Ownership and COI discussions. You can and will call me whatever you'd like -- I don't tolerate personal attacks – even if you make them and quickly archive them. But here's the rub. If you really give some thought to what conflict of interest means, you wouldn't want to skirt the issue legalistically. You'd consider that building and article about your favorite car with your own photos and your own photos of your own car and heavy promotional material from the manufacturer – while claiming to be neutral and keeping the article bias-free is a thin argument at best. I think what you are doing, with a high degree of well-meaning effort, a lot of work, and a bit of a machine-gun-take-no-prisoners approach, is to protect the article from the Vega's larger, well-documented and marred legacy. I'd like not to think that you just can't stomach the idea of anyone else actually having their contributions make it into the article. I read once on your talk page something that you have since archived... that you want this article to be the definitive article about the Vega. But what I don't see and haven't seen evidence of, is an article that welcomes other viewpoints and other voices – and that 'this is what will make the article better. If you use your own precedent, including a plethora of information makes the article better: if the article can stretch to include every dot and tiddle about the fake wood siding, the public opinion polls and even the "famously crappy" reputation can make the article better too. I agree, the wording needs to be handled carefully. But I think the article can aim higher. I think you and the article would be better off embracing this direction than trying to forestall it. I'm not asking you to vote on what I've just written. I'm asking you to just consider it. 842U (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all the article was judged neutral two years ago when I was advised to make a complete Problem Section; and the car's problems were explained with reliable sources. Your internet Criticism skips a chapter. Actually its skipped everywhere accept here. ALL of the car's issues were corrected over five model years - The oil burning (new seals) the overheating (improved block & cooling system), the excessive engine noise (non-mechanical tappets), the rusted fenders and rockers (galvanized panels), the rear wheel hop (redesigned rear suspension), etc. and the 60k engine warranty. Want me to keep going? This is left off all internet articles and blogs on the car, except here, not skipping a chapter just for controversy effect. (How could those articles claim a "worst car" status if they mention the continued development). Reviews can be biased, but facts and information don't lie. Only current auto sourced magazine reviews (ie Motor Trend, Motor Trend Classic, Collectible Automobile) present the car in retrospect with neutrality, not skipping key facts of its continued development, and they can be found in Criticism (and praise). This article is where the critics and blog writers will go for information (they have already, proving its value) before they "frame" their stories, then choosing what they will leave out. It will be fun to see just how much of the missing chapters go beyond here though. And that is what makes this article worthy of Wikipedia...It's completeness. Nothing is skipped over, and proving after a read, the car's internet articles and blogs have been somewhat incomplete and clearly biased. The purpose of this article, as any Wikipedia article, is to present a concise, factual and neutral account. Internet and media reviews by their very nature, do not always offer these attributes, favoring a "one-sided" account and controversy. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

This statement BVCBob, seems specious: "Only current auto sourced magazine reviews (ie Motor Trend, Motor Trend Classic, Collectible Automobile) present the car in retrospect with neutrality." Is that your opinion? It certainly doesn't reflect any other guideline I've seen here at Wikipedia. And really, so what if the article was judged neutral two years ago? Where the article is today is really far more important, don't you think? And what about the article is concise? 842U (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just making a point if you look at the current reviews of the car mags in Criticism they are more neutral than internet if you compare them, that's all, they are less biased and tend to state all facts. and I meant the article was judged neutral two years ago without the reviews because the problem section was requested for the neutral tag to go. A Criticism section wasn't asked for. The problems were needed in a section, not just mentioned throughout the article. Reviews from any source had no bearing on the article's neutrality, and weren't requested. All the facts on the cars virtues and vices are still more important than reviews, which can be biased. You need all the facts to have the complete story, and the complete story is usually not in reviews. Bottom line of course is, both is better, the facts and the reviews. (Barnstarbob (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

"A few examples of (non biased) criticism "summations" presented" Non-biased? I read those, & I get a strong sense of POV. They read like apologism for the Vega's flaws, or for GM's failings. (I get a similar sense from Alden's Fleet Submarine on the HOR/MAN engines.) To leave that in is unencyclopedic IMO, & certainly not NPOV. Should the fact GM corrected the flaws be omitted? Not at all. Just change the tone a bit. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, Trekphiler, I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you please state it another way? 842U (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

•sigh• What I'm hoping for is keeping the info without the apologism. As it is, it has a bad smell to me, & cited or not, IMO that needs fixing. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The objectives of the article

You mean it's not ok to trust Newsweek, Time, Popular Mechanics or the people who wrote books about the US Auto Industry &ndash or any of the other very oft cited sources that suggest the car has a seriously marred legacy? Can we run this by the Wiki-Automobile Portal? It doesn't seem kosher. And really, why go to great length to include things that are so trivial, such as the fake wood siding, when you are so particular about sourcing? You can't tell me that's really important, to begin with. Who is the author? What did he write... a book, an article... what is it exactly? What are his qualifications? Was this a text book he wrote? Time and and Newsweek have editorial staffs. They are journalists. I mean... what's the deal here: we have a really low threshold for fluffering the article with tantelizing but ultimately unimportant things... and when it comes to the car's legacy, we can't trust Newsweek and Time? Hmmm. This is what really throws me off about the way you're going to bat with this article. To me, it's thin reasoning, and it comes off like the article is afraid of the truth.842U (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Time, Newsweek and Popular Mechanics magazines. But internet articles, web blogs and polls with headings from those sources, Time.com etc (to establish credibility) are written by individuals merely to stir up controversy with biased fluff, while not offering much factual information. Nonetheless they're are in Criticism under internet. Time.com's The Right Stuff: Does the U.S Industry Have It?, U.S. News.com's The Chevy Vega: the Worst Detroit Car Ever?, Money U.S. News.com's Why America Is Shunning GM, Popular Mechanics.com's 10 Cars that Damaged General Motors [2](Barnstarbob (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

So you are of the opinion that Time, Newsweek, Popular Mechanics and other magazines are written merely to stir up controversy with biased stuff. You are actually excluding information by these sources because of this personal opinion? Because while you are entitled to your opinion on this, I don't believe for a second a review board here on Wikipedia would support this opinion. 842U (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I said the Internet web articles and web blogs are biased and don't offer much information, and other Users agree as per discussion, although useful articles have been retained in Criticism (internet). Magazine articles from Time, US News and Newsweek have been reliable sources of news and information through the years and all have been retained in Criticism (non-auto press and book).(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Ok, I understand now, because what you've been writing here isn't clear: "But internet articles, web blogs and polls with headings from those sources, Time.com etc (to establish credibility) are written by individuals merely to stir up controversy with biased fluff, while not offering much factual information. Nonetheless they're are in Criticism under internet. Time.com's The Right Stuff: Does the U.S Industry Have It?" This TIME article was written in 1990 and you denigrated its authenticity. I think what's really scary here, however, is your self-appointed status as the gatekeeper of information. You put yourself in the position to doubt the credibility of, for example, Newman, writing for Forbes.com... as someone intending merely to stir up something. Again, what gives you this right? What specifically do you know about Newman's motives? You realize that your standards here get very high for information you want to bury in the article? And your standards are pretty low in a lot of other cases. We're not supposed to defer to one editors idiosyncratic notions, but rather editorial guidelines. Why then, if you are so unbiased, don't you allow the preponderance of information, the consensus if you will -- that includes ostensibly well-research books (by noted historians) and magazine articles that are by vetted editorial staffs -- to inform the article as to the car's marred legacy -- in a clear, open, and salient way?842U (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

In the section Chevrolet_Vega#122_CID_DOHC, the "Cosworth Vega Owners Association" is given as the source for the number of vehicles produced. This is a dubious source and it should be replaced with a reliable one as soon as possible, or the claim should be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How could the only source (since 1975) dedicated to preserving the marque be considered dubious? They have all the information, pertaining to the history of the car, much of it supplied by GM and Chevrolet.(Barnstarbob (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

So are you saying there are no reliable publications which state how many were built? If the only source is an owner's club then that is original research. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are, however, you're stating the remaining engines information was dubious (not the amount of cars made which can be be referenced, and is, from other sources) CVOA states that not all remaining engines were scrapped. This information was provided by Chevrolet to the CVOA.Barnstarbob (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

If the data is not published elsewhere, then this is original research. Cosworth Vega Owners Association cannot possibly be regarded as a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC

I will change the refernece. It is sited elsewhere. Also the CVOA is not a fansite. It is a national organization dedicated to the preservation of the marque and provides much information to non-members not available elsewhere, and is a useful external link.(Barnstarbob (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

WP:ELNO criteria #10 and #11 are quite specific about forums and fansites. If someone is interested in the Vega then they can get to the website through DMOZ which is already listed in the article. Having looked at the site I don't think it meets criteria #1 either. I have added DMOZ for your convenience, the fansite can be added there instead --Biker Biker (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the CVOA to the DMOZ. Thanks.(Barnstarbob (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

Image formatting and placement

According to MOS:IMAGES, text should not be sandwiched between two images - it makes the text extremely hard to read on lower resolution screens. Furthermore, unless there is good reason thumbnails should be left without a size. I have fixed some of these issues - which unfortunately meant one image had to be dropped from the article (of the cars stacked in the train carriage) but there were two similar images in that section anyway. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Praise and criticism sections

The whole reception section is flawed as the main subsections need to have introductions and splitting into automotive press vs. others is suboptimal.The main reception section should explain that the car received initial praise but subsequent bad press. Similarly both the praise and criticism sections need prose adding. As they are currently presented they are little better than bulleted lists - which if we are going to do that in chronological order then we shouldn't have the false distinction of automotive vs the others. Furthermore I cannot see why the Ralph Nader piece, which acts as a perfect introduction to the topic of criticism should not be added to the introduction. Bob has argued that it compromises neutrality, yet placing at the beginning of the subsection has nothing to do with neutrality and everything to do with readability. So I propose that either it be left with my introduction to the criticism section, or that we do away with the division by source and simply list praise and criticism chronologically in their respective sections. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please come to agreement on lead section

Let's all work together on the lead section. Bob doesn't like 842U's version, although I do, I think it is much better. So Bob, please let's work to come up with a version of the lead that we *all* like. What specifically would you like to see changed with 842U's version? --Biker Biker (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of 842U changing of the lead section constantly.. He started a discussion in Projects Automobiles, then did not participate, then proceeded to change every it every day for weeks, disregarding that discussion and current Users thoughts- User on current version 842U keeps deleting - "Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger." ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The lead summarizes the article, sites the car's notable issues, the company's effects, solutions and result - and is neutral. There is no need to discuss further as it has been covered and discussed at length. 842U will continue to rehash to get his way and it's just not productive at this point.(Barnstarbob (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

But consensus comes from discussion and I for one think his version is better, but perhaps there is some middle ground - so there absolutely is a need to discuss. You do yourself and this article no favours by constantly reverting. So back to my question - what specifically is wrong with 842U's version. Or to 842U, what is wrong with bob's version? --Biker Biker (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's better and other Users agree. Problems are sited, (with effect to company added), company's response to the problems and the result - cancellation. It is neutral, factual and summarizes the article in a neutral way.(Barnstarbob (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

The lead ignores the broad role of the Vega in the US auto industry, its attempt to compete directly with imports, and the legacy of the car as promising but highly flawed. These are important aspects of the subject of the article. The body of the article is characterized by lots of minutia and little filtering or prioritization of information. Just because inforamtion can be sourced, does not mean it belongs in the article, especially trivia. 842U (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been judged neutral (even before criticism section was added) because the facts in the Problems section that was required for neutrality flag was added by me, and states facts regarding the car's issues. The main issues (that caused the car's cancellation) are mentioned in the lead and it has been determined that it does not require further pruning, nor does the article require any major changes. There are 35 Users watching the article for a long while, and many of those watchers have participated in discussions, contributing their suggestions and edits, and over 400,000 views of article have been made in two years...all seemingly having no problems with the article as it is. But 842U and Biker Biker (who did not participate in the two recent discussions) insist on making major changes to the article including a non-neutral and biased lead section and deletion of images and sections. 842U has been changing the lead section every few days for months (since discussion was ended recommending no further pruning of article). It is non-productive and taking much of my time away from improving other articles.(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

♠My $0.02? 3 things look tacked-on: the 140cid, the TC, & the Monza/Chevette. The 140cid IMO should come out as irrelevant. The Monza/Chevette needs to be related to the decline in sales (since I doubt either would have been developed if the Vega wasn't perceptibly in trouble). I'd incline to removing the TC ref, too; this is the main Vega article, & mention of the TC could, & IMO should, be moved down. At a minimum the trivia of its displacement should be removed.

♠This, while allegedly neutraly, is mostly trivia, & looks to me like an attempt to hide the Vega's flaws by distracting readers with irrelevant junk, or offer apologies for them, without expressly blaming GM management. If someone wanted to add criticism of management, I would have no objection (& in fact would encourage it, as an essential part of the Vega story), since it wasn't AFAIK the engineers & line workers who bungled, but the bigwigs & beancounters, tho it tends to be the line workers who built them who take the blame...

♠I also think removing mention of the competition is a bad idea, especially since small imports were a big reason the Vega, Pinto, & Gremlin were developed in the first place. Moreover, Detroit's manifest failure to get it right is exemplified by the Vega.

♠Also, while it appears to be a common WP practise, I see no point whatever in extensively quoting what the sources say in the footnotes. It only adds clutter for editing the main part(s) of the page. If anybody's interested, let them look it up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oww, this is becoming a right mess. I agree that we need a more unbiased tone here - for all of Barnstarbob's worthy contributions, I'd like this article's main tone to reflect the failure that the Vega was. I also want people to understand that the Vega carried within it certain successful elements, but I don't want these to be given undue weight. I also don't want Barnstarbob to feel needlessly targeted - and I hope that this will hinder Bob before engaging in any future uncivility. We hear you now, no more need for anger of any sort.

As far as Trekphiler's list above, I can currently agree to all of this (except that some mention of the TC does belong in the intro).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The point here isn't to target an editor, but to note the qualities where the article succeeds and fails. While the discussion about the lead is important, the article itself has been stripped of the "broad legacy" components as well. There has been an effort to bifucate sections of the article by where the sources come from. This is far from standard practice -- and ties in with the stated opinion to exclude certain sources because they aren't "auto-based." We need to get to the bottom of that also. 842U (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of bob's arguments, we now have a very welcome two week holiday from editing the article itself and a chance to sort out this mess using an RFC. Ebikeguy (talk · contribs) gave me a good example of one (Talk:Toyota_Camry_Hybrid#RFC:_Merge_Toyota_Camry_Hybrid_with_Toyota_Camry_.28XV40.29.3F) but being largely unfamiliar with the process I asked if he could kick it off. However, if one of you wants to beat him to it you are very welcome. I do hope that bob sees this as a way forward as there are now a number of us who recognise the need for change. I also hope that he will participate in a rational, productive and non-combative way - as I hope we all will too. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

♠"the stated opinion to exclude certain sources because they aren't 'auto-based.'" IMO, the carmags (including MT, bottom feeders tho they may be...) should be given priority. The likes of PM should be excluded in preference to C&D, R&T, & HR wherever possible. Given a choice between, say, Toland & Prange, I'd take Prange every time. IDK if this falls afould of WP policy, but I just don't consider PM, PS, & MT of the same reliability or caliber as sources. This is the same: there are sources, & there are really good sources.

♠As to the TC, I don't have strong objections to inclusion in the lead, just some doubts. If the emphasis goes beyond a passing mention, it's getting too much attention IMO, & as it is, I get the feeling it's being made out as more important than it was. (IDK why I get that sense, but...) Remove the year of intro for it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Trekphiler - I don't think Users are up on what has gone on here recently...The current lead paragraph is a factual, neutral summary of the subject of the article...the sentence near the end of the lead, sites three footnotes (used to keep lead a proper size), explaining the car's major issues, and GM's resulting reputation damage, and they are from reliable, verifiable sources.

A poor public perception of the Vega had developed from early model engine[3] and fender corrosion[4] issues that damaged General Motors reputation for build quality.[5]

Now, below is what the above sentence replaced - a sampling of what I've had to revert added by 842A - His closing sentence to the lead duplicated almost all of the URL links from quotes in the Criticism section. Take a look at this mess by 842U from April 9th -

with The car was hugely damaging to General Motors[10][11][12][13] and to this day remains remains widely disparaged.[14][15][16][17][18][7][8][10]

There is a reason I have filed the complaint...it has gotten out of hand. Those 10 URL footnotes (in that one sentence) by 842U are in the article under quotes listed in Criticism, but he wanted all "upfront and center" as well,in the lead, as he said. Every day there was a different lead version with nonsense like this... This was the peak for the most footnotes in one sentence...and it went on for over a month. This is only a sentence from his constant reediting of the lead paragraph, which alone renders it, and the article non-neutral, not to mention it does not follow Wikipedia standards for prose or style. The goal here, as I have stated over and over to him, is to present a factual, and neutral summation with no User opinion or framing added. I have not seen anything like this in over two years contributing to this site - a User (842U) changing a lead to an article almost every day for months after a discussion was ended, approving the article (and its lead paragraph) as not needing further pruning or major changes. It is clear 842U did not like the User suggestions and conclusions of the previous and current discussions. As for the above sampling of his editing. It's no longer in the article. The URLs remain with the individual quotes in Criticism. (Barnstarbob (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

You have made your opinions about the article crystal clear, but understand that there are far more people than 842U who don't like the current article. Only you seem to like it. When the RFC is open you will have a chance over the next 10 days or so to discuss with other interested editors and reach consensus on a better lead, content and section layout. We will hopefully come out at the end with a much better article. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC

Here's a couple more clear points. You are one of the few you have a (current) problem with it. You've made mostly style changes like image locations and the like of which I do not like, but haven't reverted. I do question them, and will seek opinion on it since 35 watched Users over two years didn't have a problem with the images locations...only you. You've agreed with 842Us editing. I don't, and neither do other Users. The article will stay neutral. Content is not the issue. It's how it must be presented. This is Wikipedia, not 842Us, or your personal web blog. The material will be presented with neutrality.(Barnstarbob (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

No, the material will be presented according to consensus, a state that will be achieved taking into consideration wikipedia policies and guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, undue weight etc. along the way. . As for my image changes these have only been a tiny part of the changes that I made and the most recent at that. My initial changes to the article were mostly related to the manual of style - especially number formatting and reference positions. It was only once I'd got through all these that I saw how shockingly bad the article was in the way it was presented, and that's why I'm so happy that everyone's editing has been stopped and we all now get a chance to come to agreement on a way forward built on consensus. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been. As I said, you or 842U haven't participated in previous group discussions, (842U holds his own discussions, then proceeds to revamp the entire article on his own) You also should discuss any major changes you want to make before you make them. All of your changes were not reverted, so you shouldn't have any beefs. I made the complaint about you because the first time a reverted a MAJOR change you made, (without bringing it up in discussion) you threatened me. Well, try to make a major change now!) The most recent group discussion, ended with many changes, deletions and a conclusion that no further pruning or major changes were needed. All suggestions were followed by all Users, including splits with three new articles -Chevrolet Cosworth Vega, Pontiac Astre and GM Rotary engine, and most of the Aluminum block text split to the GM 2300 engine. These were done by me, as suggested from other Users, to trim size of article. I have worked with all Users on the article, most offering their suggestions, and I did not revert any User contribution or deletion. These hasn't been a problem in those discussions or consensus. You and 842U had to have YOUR WAY, and both of you disregarded consensus, making major changes and deletions, with out regard for other User contributions, suggestions and conclusions of previous and current discussions. So let's get it straight, I've been working with other Users, and together, there has been no major problem, until now. Your behavior and threats lead to my filing the complaint and the resulting lock. You caused the disruption. Before going forward, just wanted to make that very clear.(Barnstarbob (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)) (Barnstarbob (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

I wouldn't go taking silence for assent. Could be nobody else feels strongly enough either way. Could be nobody's inclined to get in a fight with you over it. (I walked away from this page after coming to believe it wasn't worth it, & I'm not one who backs down much.)

As far as the current state, it's better. The problem is your evident desire for a very different lead, & having looked at it, I agree with 842U & Biker, that version doesn't get it. Theirs isn't ideal, either, but it's miles better. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well. that's 3 to 3. Too bad 842Us version wasn't even worthy of a blog. 10 Urls in a sentence. Crap. TREKphiler - Lead doesn't have to "Get it." it states the facts, the effects and the conclusion in a neutral way without i.e. framing Time magazines opinion as fact. It's not supposed to be an internet trash summary; It doesn't have to be a complete list of every damn review the car had either. The Corvette (50 model years) has a 10 line lead and states BASIC GENERAL FACTS. The lead isn't a blog and this site isn't Consumer reports either, although their reviews are in here. 842U, over the course of a month, doubled the size if it turning it into a biased mini article (easy), siting duplicate URLs (from Criticism) of every bad piece of press the car ever had. up to 10 in one sentence. The problem with his lead edit is, he changed it daily for at least a month, so its the most changed section in the article, in the shortest period of time, changed by one User, Himself. Great group effort. Just look at his April 9th sentence above. That didn't stay past a day (sorry 842U) but he tried about 30 different variations...all biased Ugh. he found a fan though. After his threats I reported them both. Many Users actually like the current (neutral) lead, as its been basically the same for two years, through three discussions and many Users and even an Administrator has contributed to it. So.. its been tweaked a lot longer than 842Us solo month old version. The main goal should be - allowing quality work to remain in articles, and that is a major problem with Wikipedia, the cause of its questionable reputation. You should be concerned on improving it, not allowing substandard, non-neutral work to infest it. TREKphiler The huge Cosworth section I made into complete new article, to reduce this one's size by recommendation, and you are complaining about one sentence mentioned about it in the lead?....Well, there were countless Non-released Vega variants, El Camino type, V8, Rotary, and many more...enough for a new section... the Cosworth is the only special variant that made it to production, and I mentioned it in the lead, why? its noteworthy enough for the lead, but took out the other H Body (Buick, Olds, Pontiac) variants. There were 6 and now there is 2 (Cosworth and Monza) mentioned. So we should mention the Pinto, but not the Cosworth Vega in the lead? There is a complete section of the Vega vs the Pinto, and other competitors, but not on the Cosworth....How come I didn't see a comment from you made about 842Us April 9th sentence - with The car was hugely damaging to General Motors[10][11][12][13] and to this day remains remains widely disparaged.[14][15][16][17][18][7][8][10] - and it would still be there too, if it was up to him! But only 3 footnotes in a sentence of my version is not ok. With all due respect, I'm not sure if I could deal with you and 842U in the same discussion. But if history is any indicator, that might not happen. He has skipped the discussions and goes right to his (own) major article changes, disregarding the discussion, and leaving us not even knowing if he actually even read the discussion) Verrry sneeky... Again you're barking up the wrong tree. The lead has been formed and approved by many Users. There isn't much, if anything that needs, or should be changed in the lead at this point, and plenty of input has been used to make it as is, and as it now stands, the three opinions both ways, doesn't equal two years of input, suggestions and contributions of many Users either. The article is very much a group effort, over time. And don't expect it to become a biased rehash by one or two Users that haven't considered User discussions or User consensus. I don't consider the time invested in those discussions a waste of time by many Users and myself. Again, the recent discussion has determined the article no longer needs any major changes for size and neutrality (and User bias or User opinion hasn't been allowed to remain in the article) Opinions are reserved for (reliable and verifiable) sources in the Reception section - Praise and Criticism, and without framing or biased introductions by a User. Criticism will continue to stand on its own, and tells the story just fine without a Wikipedia User adding bias to the article. When the lock is removed a major change to any section(s) should be brought up in the article discussion page first which should have been done by 842U, (who has also failed to participate in ANY group discussions on this article). (Barnstarbob (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

Consicely, the problems with the article are a bit like this discussion. The plain truth is obfuscated by a barrage of edits that do little to assimilate information. The article had become a bloated puff piece that failed to hit the high points of the subject -- which happen to have an extremely negative component. It reads like an article by a fan, working feverishly to whitewash the negative legacy of the Vega. 842U (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

842U! Welcome. This is your first group discussion I believe so try to be productive. But first. Your non-automotive sourced criticism, as I said was well researched. It's delivery was however, framed with your opinions and quite biased in presentation i.e. comments listed out of context. not to worry... all the trashy criticism you added is now presented in context without your framing or your opinions. By the way, All that was needed for article neutrality from the beginning was the Problems section which lists the car's issues from reliable, verifiable sources. But as as I said, add the trash you want. It's your specialty! It belongs in Criticism though, not framed with your opinion in the lead paragraph. You will not add your opinions on the subject to the article and will not frame Time or Newsweeks criticism to present "your Legacy." The Criticism will stand on its own (as you formally suggested, but since have changed your mind) I don't add User opinion and neither will you. All opinions will stay in Reception. When you become a contributor to a referened reliable source you can voice your opinion, but as of now all you can do is list it without YOUR OPINION or FRAMING ADDED. and now an intermission break for other Users to view the counterattack your latest accusation. "a bloated puff piece" And YOU made it so much better. All the Users should offer their thanks. (To other Users) He repeats his accusations A LOT so I have to keep proving him wrong. Copy and Paste saves time though.

A few examples of (non biased) criticism "summations" presented in the article without User framing or User opinion expressed. Quality material worthy of Wikipedia, not internet fluff. and no, none of these were added by 842U.

• In Development section - Chevrolet paid a price in its rush to introduce the car with the other 1971 models. Tests which should have been at the proving grounds were preformed by customers necessitating numerous piecemeal "fixes" by dealers. Chevrolet's "bright star", received an enduring black eye despite a continuing development program which eventually alleviated most of these initial shortcomings.
• In Design and Engineering - Plagued by vibrations and noisy operation and prone to overheating, the engine definitely did not live up to the Vega's potential.By 1974, the overheating was gone, the vibrations were a thing of the past and the noise had been reduced to an acceptable level.
• In DeLorean influence - "This program produced a hostile relationship between the corporate staffs, which essentially designed and engineered the car, and Chevrolet Division which was to sell it.
• In Problems -Collectible Automobile said in April 2000 "Although the Vega sold well from the beginning, the buying public soon started to question the car's quality. It had every right to; It came out prematurely and still had a lot of glitches." Further development and upgrades continued throughout the car's seven year production run, addressing its engine and cost-related issues.
• In Problems - Five years later, after GM had spent millions to replace thousands of sets of rusted-out Vega fenders in the field, the plastic fender liners were reinstated as a mid-model change during the 1974 model year, but rust damage also affected the rocker panels, the door bottoms, the area beneath the windshield, and the primary body structure above the rockers.."
• In Problems - Under a revised 50,000 mi (80,467 km) engine warranty for 1971–1975 Vegas, an owner with a damaged engine had a choice to have the short block replaced with a brand new unit or a rebuilt steel-sleeved unit. This proved costly for Chevrolet. GM engineer Fred Kneisler maintaines that too much emphasis had been put on overheating problems versus the real culprits: brittle valve stem seals and too-thin piston plating. Regardless of the cause, damaged cylinder walls were common.
• In Problems - Despite its lack of success with the Vega, the liner-less aluminum/silicon engine technology that GM and Reynolds developed turned out to be sound. Mercedes-Benz and Porsche both use sleeveless aluminum engines today, the basic principles of which were developed for the Vega engine.
• In Criticism - Motor Trend in its 50th Anniversary Issue September 1999 said, "The Vega seemed well placed to set the standard for subcompacts in the 70s, but it was troubled by one of the most vulnerable Achilles heels in modern automotive history; an alloy four-cylinder engine block that self destructed all too easily, and all too often. Once the word got out the damage was done, even though the engine had been revamped."
• In Criticism -Collectible Automobile said in April 2000, "The Chevy Vega has become a symbol of all the problems Detroit faced in the 70's." "Ed Cole and the corporation initially had high hopes for the Vega, But then, little by little, everything that could go wrong, did. Had its big engineering and manufacturing plans succeeded, the last laugh might have belonged to Chevy." "The greatest toll came in the damage it did to Chevrolet's and GM's reputation. The other effect the Vega had on GM was to help make the corporation conservative, and dull its will to lead."

842A -If the above material were missing in the article, your contributions, non-auto book and internet criticism, would surly render this article non-neutral, (like most website articles on the subject are). With both, the article remains neutral. This Wikipedia article will remain factual and neutral. Although retained in the Criticism section, internet sourced criticism (blogs, and web artciles) are biased, non-neutral, with information sometimes presented out of context or incomplete as they are often written by a "non expert" with limited access to referenced information, or information is "conveniently" withheld for the sake of effect or controvsery, rendering them only moderately useful. This article with well over 100 references, I'm sure, has helped to change that "shortage of information" and will continue to be the reference for ALL the information, facts (and reception) offered on the subject without Wikipedia User opinion. Your contribution was not discounted so DON"T DISCOUNT MINE. Based on previous and current group discussion, (which you failed to participate in) you have the minority opinion, as it has been determined by Users the article no longer needs major pruning or major changes. And since, because of your major revamping of the article without discussing proposed major changes beforehand, You are the cause of the article lock. (Barnstarbob (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict...)

Y'know, this redundant data dump was completely unnecessary. However...

"Chevrolet's "bright star", received an enduring black eye despite a continuing development program which eventually alleviated most of these initial shortcomings" The "bright star" is inappropriate & unencyclopedic. The "continuing development program...alleviated" reads like something from GM PR. Unanswered is why the damn car needed a "continuing development program" in the first place. As noted, if GM managment was criticized for screwing that up, I'd have no objection. Ignoring it is wrong.

"Five years later, after GM had spent millions to replace thousands of sets of rusted-out Vega fenders in the field, the plastic fender liners were reinstated as a mid-model change during the 1974 model year" Unadressed is why it took GM five damn years to fix it. The emphasis on how much it cost appears intended to make it look excusable. It isn't. The effort to distract attention is POV.

"By 1974, the overheating was gone, the vibrations were a thing of the past and the noise had been reduced to an acceptable level." Unaddressed, yet again, is why it took until 1974 to solve something that should have been unacceptable, & fixed, before car #1 left the assembly line. Again, a management issue. It now reads like an apology for GM. That's POV.

"the linerless ...technology...turned out to be sound" After turning Vega customers into experimental guinea pigs. This might have been OK in the '30s, when Ford did it with the 18. It wasn't in 1970. Adding Mercedes & Porsche smells like an endorsement of GM management's maltreatment of customers at worst, an apology at best. That's POV.

"Once the word got out the damage was done, even though the engine had been revamped." That, again, sounds like an apology. Those who've read the page will know the revamp happened. Adding this makes it sound like the customers were wrong to want GM to get it right in the first place. That's POV.

"The other effect the Vega had on GM was to help make the corporation conservative, and dull its will to lead." This may be the best thing in the page: why GM behaved how it did. It's still not why GM management turned Vega customers into guinea pigs, or why they allowed such a turkey to escape the engineering test labs, but it's a start. Unfortunately, it's also POV, because it blames the Vega & not management, when the Vega problems were a product of GM maanagement decisions from the very start. Can you feature a piece of junk like the Vega getting out of Tokyo, Stuttgart, or Wolfsburg? Not a chance! So why did it get out of Dearborn? (Ditto the reskinned Firetrap II.)

Have a look at this. The Vega never suffered a problem like it, yet this page is full of apology & quibbling. It's neither NPOV nor encyclopedic. Why? Look in a mirror, Bob.

Finally, will you stop constantly going back & editing your posts?! My watchlist looks like the Invasion of the Vega Links. I'd like to have something else visible on it. The new software (on my browser, anyhow) even encourages using the preview function. Try it! You might even like it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Every time 842U makes an accusation I will discredit him with facts, I've had enough of it. The article is not a fan site, is not bloated puff piece, and I'm tired of 842Us constant daily changing of the lead paragraph over several months. The damn discussion said it's good enough, and yet he revamps it every day for months and not for the better, and not before a discussion an a major change. Stop this User from wasting everyone's time, mainly mine, after complete discussions are commenced. He does not follow Wikipedia policy for making major changes after a discussion is completed which he chooses to avoid. If he isn't told to stop further major changes without discussing it first, I will request a longer lock until its done. And stop sidestepping the problem here. The above list are QUOTES from reputable sources whether you like and agree with them or not. It isn't important what your opinion is or 842Us opinion is or my opinion, its the sources that are important and if they are presented, that they are without bias or framing, so what is your point and how does it help to improve the article? I said it many times... - Criticism will be presented without framing and without User opinion.- THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE - 842U will not frame the lead that the Vega was a poorly engineered car, just because his Criticism 1990 Time entry says so. It does belong in Criticism. Motor Trend and Car and Driver said it was well-engineered. Did I put that in the lead? No, its in Praise. Time, MT and C&D comments are opinions, and opinions do not belong in the lead paragraph, framed by a User (842U) to bias the article to a point of view. They belong as quoted in Praise and Criticism, on their own. (He initially agreed to this). Rest assured, all opinions are presented, past and present, WITH NO BIAS FRAMING by a Wikipedia or a User (842U). He is the only User that has consistently tried to do this. So, General FACTS belong in the lead to summarize the article and the current lead does just that - The intro date, the name source, the models, including a limited edition with a hand-built engine, a sales peak, then a three sales drop due to a poor reputation developed and new in-house models - the causes (engine, body issues), response (added development), the effects (damaged company reputation), and the result (cancellation). It covers what is important for a an accurate summary of the subject. Users have said don't change a thing. But NO. 842U says we have to "put it all up-front" so he makes a mini-article of all the trash he added to Criticism (non-auto and internet) and uses 10 duplicate URLs from Criticism in one sentence to close the lead, but fails to properly summarize the article and renders it non-neutral in the process, all without discussing his major change (I should say his 30 versions of his major change) first - in a group discussion. The current neutral, approved lead is all up front...The facts are all there. Nothing is biased or sugar coated, but it is, after all, supposed to be a summary of the subject, not a biased consumer warning mini article. I've been given Review and Rollback rights and I have not abused them, but this month I was tempted to use them. (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

That's quite an outpouring of opinion bob and I think we have a good understanding of your position. In the RFC, which will result in change to the article, other editors will be also allowed to express their opinions. I would like to offer you a bit of personal advice - your repeated statements and accusations about user 842U are bordering on harassment. I suggest that you tone down your personal attacks on him. Understand that there are now several editors who wish the article to undergo a radical rewrite, not just him. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you the appointed judge? Kidding? I had to put up with 842Us constant daily reediting of major changes to this article without his following Wikipedia policies, and next time I will try to have him blocked if at all possible. Biker Biker, you are the other User that brought on the lock. Try to concentrate on editing as part of the discussion outcome and just not your own personal opinions likes and dislikes. Sorry. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings. lol. 842U frames his Criticism and URLs for the lead ruining the article's neutral point of view and you just tagged along... Both of you caused the lock. There really wasn't a problem until you just jumped right in their with those major changes without getting 'em approved. Too bad they're no longer in the article. All major changes shouls just go through discussion first as per recent group discussion - (article no longer requires major pruning or major changes}. Next time I will request a User block. Figure I'd give ya both a heads up for next time, but count on it. Tired of all the work, the discussions and it's all ignored by one or two Users who think they alone can make major changes however and whenever and want. Your edits were not reverted but as per previous discussion outcome, MAJOR CHANGES at this point must be presented first, and approved first on this this page. (Barnstarbob (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

Quoting TREKphiler here:

"Chevrolet's "bright star", received an enduring black eye despite a continuing development program which eventually alleviated most of these initial shortcomings" The "bright star" is inappropriate & unencyclopedic. The "continuing development program...alleviated" reads like something from GM PR. Unanswered is why the damn car needed a "continuing development program" in the first place.

Ummm... here, "bright star" refers to Vega, which is what Chevy named the car after. Using "bright star" in this (obviously critical) context seems to me a rhetorical devise, serving to underline the Vega's problems. Let's at least be careful, babies and bathwater and all of that.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr Choppers, It is a quote. I do not change wording in a quote. Do you feel it should be deleted?(Barnstarbob (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

I am not judge and jury. I don't get to approve content because there is no such thing as approved content on Wikipedia – only that which has been arrived at by consensus. Nobody owns or approves anything on Wikipedia because it is based on consensus. I'm puzzled therefore why you say "There really wasn't a problem until you just jumped right in their with those major changes without getting 'em approved." You also say "Next time article will be I will request a User block. Figure I'll give ya a heads up for next time, but count on it." Why are you making threats? Are you threatening to ask for user blocks on anyone who participates in the RFC, which is certain to result in major changes to the article? As for the two week block to the article itself I'm very happy that it is in place because it now gives us all a chance to collaborate via the RFC. The fact that you think it doesn't need any changes at all, and is in fact a perfect and exemplary article, makes me wonder whether you will participate in the RFC. I do hope you will. For now I suggest you read WP:STICK and let's resume discussion about the content of the article in the RFC and forget about the history of the last couple of weeks. We are where we are, how we got here is now history, and what faces us is a chance to improve something that several people think needs fixing. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Biker Biker. No, No. You gotta have the last word every time, huh? See, YOU made the threat when I reverted the major change that wasn't approved in a discussion. So your threat caused me to complain about you and 842U, who I was really overdue (about a month) on making a complaint about anyway, but your revert and the threat, well just made my day. so.. my complaint against you and 842U caused the Lock. Next time you make major changes to the article without a discussion first, threat or not included, will result in a block (if it is at all possible). Promise.

I have no complaints about your action w.r.t. the block. The outcome presents us with an excellent opportunity. So what about the RFC? Will you join in? --Biker Biker (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I stated my case in defense of the locked lead, and stated many reasons why it is appropriate, not to mention reviewd and approved. Previous discussions and several Users currently have stated leave it as is. You might get used to it by the 17th. The 35 watching Users seem to like it as do several administrators and let's not forget Mr Chopper's opinion, and about 450,000 readers (about 500 per day) didn't have any complaints either, in over two years. There's always one or two though....Damn, can't please everybody. Next case. What? What have most of the Users in previous and current discussions missed? What is so important to cause all this further rehashing? (Barnstarbob (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

Mr Choppers has already stated that he will participate in the RFC, as has 842U, me, TREKphiler, and Ebikeguy. What about you? --Biker Biker (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What is so important to cause all this further rehashing? And have you seen other lead paragrahs in some of these articles. Why don't they receive the scrutiny of this article when one User needs to suddenly revamp it to his own tastes. Some articles need major help and could use us where where we'rereally needed. As far as I'm concerned this is just rehashing started from one User who has not participated in previous and current discussions, and frankly I'm tired of the constant major changes after the fact without a discussion on this page first. I've stated my opinions. Did you read my Article Objectives above? There were many more Users who have stated their opinions, offered suggestion, and many changes were already made by those Users. No further pruning or additional changes are required was stated by Mr Choppers and others. I still agree with that conclusion (a month later) I will listen to further suggestions. I have participated in all discussions and have not reverted changes made during previous discussions. But the article will remain neutral with no bias by a User or framing of Criticism, which will stand on its own to maintain article neutrality. Much time has been committed, not to mention hard work, careful neutral editing and long discussions have already taken place with many resulting User's changes to its current approved version. It should not have to be revamped by one or two Users after those lengthy discussions. (Barnstarbob (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

So is that a yes? --Biker Biker (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I already said I have not interfered with other Users contributions to the article during discussions. My only concern is the biased and non-neutral Criticism "framing" of 842U lead edit giving the article a biased point of view, his deletion and major pruning of several sections and your reverting back of his major changes without discussing them first. Users that chose to only offer suggestions that were helpful to the article have always been made and other useful changes made by Users , were not reverted, providing the article maintained its neutral point of view, and it will. Like you said, Web blog should not be allowed. Neither should User opinion, including framing Time magazine's opinion in the lead as fact. Not happening. (Barnstarbob (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)) (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

Well if that is your only concern you can rest assured that the RFC will ensure that 842U does not get to dominate proceedings. Any deletion, major pruning, or major changes will be done by discussing them first and reaching consensus among the participants, and the Five Pillars will underpin everything that we do. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I will not agree to a rewrite, not after the amount of time invested over two years with several discussions with contributions from many Users...more than 4. I think you better wait for a further assessment from many more Users first, because I will take this problem as far up, including the founder to stop it. YOU ARE THE MINORITY. I'm not falling for it. The answer is no to a rewrite. It's not necessary nor could it possibly be beneficial to the article. Go back and start reading what has been posted here FIRST. All changes go through here first. No problem there. Who are you are you to decide it needs a rewrite, after two years of research, time, effort, discussions, splits, quality images. It is a complete, factual, account with a neutral point of view for a subject that has never been covered ANYWHERE as as such. Your only hurting the article and the site. I will agree to changes as other discussions have dictated. NO REWRITE IS NEEDED, NICE TRY. If you put a fifth of the work I put in here on few articles, you might be doing something more useful. You have your opinions. Try doing some actual work, and you woudn't have time for this Nonsense rehashing for nothin' I wish I could find something you've put some actual time into I could suggest some major editing for. There are two types of editors here. The one's that actually make articles worthy of the site and editors that need to be buzy doing something. You know everything about Wikipedia pokicy. You must have a lot of in betweeen improving articles. Now I have a week to figure out how to end this complete, seemingly waste of time. Next step could get nasty. (Barnstarbob (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

I'm confused. So you are now saying that you won't participate in the rewrite RFC? Taking this to Jimmy Wales is your prerogative of course, but it was the admin who froze the article that recommended a RFC as the way forward - the first step to be taken in dispute resolution. It is, as you say, a way to get "a further assessment from many more Users first". I would respectfully ask that you let the RFC take its course and if you still feel that your article has been compromised or fails verifiability, neutrality, or any of the other founding principles of WIkipedia content, then it can of course be taken to the next level of dispute resolution. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop making me the villen. I put the complaint in on YOU and 842U for making major changes without discussion first. That is why it is locked, not for evaluation. Well start discussing, cause you are not rewriting anything, and you while you're at it, start thinking why ANYHING has to be changed at this point after three long discussions and Users agreeing no further major changes are needed. The discussions have been purposeful and have improved the article as per MANY USERS, not just two. and you and 842U have not participated in any but are the only Users that have made major changes WITHOUT DISCUSSING FIRST. I have participated in all the discussions on this article over a two and a half year period and all Users that have participated in those discussions have contributed to this article. YOU WILL NOT REWRITE THIS ARTICLE because one User that has not participated in ANY discussions and , who has constantly tried making major changes without starting anything here first and getting approval from SOMEONE, ANYONE, before proceeding to change anything he wants to daily for months is gonna dictate with you and a couple of other Users a rewrite. You must be kidding? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the hell is wrong with the article anyway. Having trouble thinking up something? I guess maybe its all been covered? yea, maybe that's what's holding you up. Keep thinking, maybe by next week tou can think of something wrong other the placement of the images which looks great now, by the way...nice job..a mess. half a million people see the article, 35 watchers for two years have no problem with how the images are placed,,only you had a problem. Guess what I have problem now. Know why, cause no one else had a problem with the image placement, ONLY YOU after discussions and many User suggestions and many changes. Maybe you should have discussed it first, cause now half the article looks crowded from your jamming the images together, to one side, not to mention several had to be deleted being pushed into the next sections. And that corny zig-zag pattern you made at the beginning, with the four body styles, looks like Shit now by the way. Can you contribute anything else besides messing with the placement of images? And YOU want to rewrite it, yea with my references. How you gonna rewrite it when you can't even make a few images fit in a section, giving me this no sandwiching of images bull. There are more ways to place images in an article than you might be aware of. It looked fine. The images were carefully placed and spaced in every section. BOTTOM LINE You haven't done much to improve the article, but many other already have. It's too bad our work isn't to your liking. Barnstarbob (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC))