Talk:Automotive industry/Archive 2

Mazda missing

Mazda (position 14) appears to be missing from the World's largest vehicle manufacturers table. Tomh009 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it's (correctly) included as part of Ford. But then the second chart is incorrect. One of the two needs to change to match. Tomh009 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Hoovers, Mazda is a public company listed in Japan. Compare the Mazda entry on the Hoovers site with that of Jaguar, Volvo Car or Land Rover. Mazda is listed as a public company on the Tokyo exchange, the latter three are listed as subsidiaries of Ford. -- de Facto (talk). 10:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with DeFacto. Checking further, so it's not a subsidiary even if Ford will have a lot of clout. Similarly Kia is not a Hyundai subsidiary as Hyundai also owns less than 50%. (On the other hand, Audi AG is also publicly traded, but VW owns 99.14% of the shares -- so it is a subsidiary.) So, in the end, the table should be fixed, and the chart should stay as is ... Tomh009 (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Half a year has passed, and nothing happened - which deeply annoys me. There are, on one hand, repeated experiences of not totally perfect contributions being deleted before there's the least chance for discussion and improvement - in such cases, the answer, if a comprehensible one is given at all, uses to be something "there's already the link to the latest OICA data, thus the article needs no table or chart which soon may be outdated." On the other hand, aberrant(ly selected) informations like these are left absolutely untouched.

That's not against the creator who did invest time and efforts, but against those friends of deletion who in other cases rather brush off a text as "unencyclopedical" with poor or no explanation (in the friendly spirit of RTFM) instead of e. g. marking it with one of those inviting links saying there's something to be maintained, completed or otherwise improved. That's why I'm discussing instead of fixing it myself, probably only to see the correction being made undone a second after saving. Thanks, no - I experienced that special pleasure too often.

I'm no friend of that quick pre-erasing policy and adding hurdles of not always clear "quality" criteria, and it's quite ok to me that there's a table and a chart, even with the risk of being not free of any possible mistake: in the first place, the global impression tells more than hints where each and every detail can be found, and that's why, for good reasons, popular printed encyclopediae contain such information though in that case(s) they're going to be "outdated" even for decades of use.

What I do understand is: the ranking is cut off after # 25 ... um, principally. What I also understand is: # 33 although is added, as there is a remarkable change going on, and SAIC is important as a growing co-player as well as a remarkable joint venture partner.

What I do not understand is how arbitrarily not only Mazda is left out from the list between ranks # 1 and # 25. Missing are:

Mazda (if included with Ford - which it seemingly is not - it would have to be mentioned there),

Chana (Chang'an Motors)

Beijing

- the latter two, like SAIC, are Chinese, moreover a good deal bigger, and also run most notable joint ventures.

Chana cooperates with Jiangling, Suzuki, Mazda, and with Ford (Focus, Fiesta, Mondeo).

Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Corp. is co-running Beijing-Benz DaimlerChrysler Automotive, China's eldest such joint venture, three decades ago founded by the Beijing company and AMC (which then went to Chrysler - there's the connection), now a. o. producing Chryslers and Mercedes-Benz cars.

Entirely dispensable details, all far less important than, say, Maybach, or Zastava??? -- 80.109.76.27 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sortable table

I was bold (again), and converted the table to a sortable one. It gives the big advantage of allowing the data to be sorted by group, subsidiary, marque, and country of origin. I don't think anything from the old table has been lost, and I believe it is an improvement to the presentation. I also removed the stipulation that it shows only the "biggest 20 producers", that was always a problem to enforce, lacked flexibility and gave problems finding reliable verification data. -- de Facto (talk). 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

DeFacto I appreciate your effort to make the list easily sortable, but here are my thoughts:

The previous table was exponentially more informative and visually intuitive... This change seems unilateral and takes the page a major step backward. Why not just stipulate the rules for how the top twenty manufacturers is decided? Furthermore, the new list is completely arbitrary in its boundaries and is alphabetical, which is an extremely poor way to organize a group of "major manufacturers".

Why was there no discussion before this happened? Somatosis (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. Although I think the function is more important than the "form". The ability to sort by marque, country, company name or parent was quite useful. The new table had no less information than the old one, in fact it had more - the company name, as well as the marque name of any subsidiary companies, and it had fewer rows, but, I agree, it looked more cluttered. The order of the old one (group production volume) caused controversy, so perhaps alphabetic is better. "Top 20" is also controversial, especially as the OICA data used is so out-of-date. I'd rather see all active production marques included. It'll be interesting to hear the opions of others. -- de Facto (talk). 11:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It takes time to collate industrywide production numbers -- six months is not unreasonable. 2007 data is only now becoming available. Tomh009 (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OICA Data

OICA figures arenot right,AFAIK,the three chinese makers produced more than 1 millions per year.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The latest OICA manufacturer data is for 2006, so the makers you added may well be producing more vehicles per year now. All of the other rankings are based on that old data though, so it is probably fair to to accept that order. Alternatively, if you know of a more up-to-date and reliable reference source for the statistics please add it. -- de Facto (talk). 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can find some pages in chinese--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good arguments. Could you two, please, cast an eye on my posting in the above thread "Mazda missing"? I think Chana and Beijing shouldn't be left out from the ranking - which even then may not show totally reliable and even up-to-date figures, but would give a far more realistic idea of the current development. Thanks. -- 80.109.76.27 (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates in article

Why are those two templates now collapsed,{{World motor vehicle production by country}} {{World motor vehicle production by manufacturer}} IMO it looks stupid to have those in the middle of page.... --— Typ932^{T | C}  08:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No longer collapsed. --Tomh009 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The 34th

According to the history of Automotive industry article, 30 June 2008, DeFacto was filled places between 25th and 33rd from OICA data.

The 34th is Anhui Jianghuai Automobile (abbr. as JAC - Jianghuai Anhui Automobile, JAC is also its brand name, that's mean its car are not calling "Anhui"). This company is in Anhui, same province as Chery (but JAC is not a part of Chery or joint venture with Chery). There are no its article in English Wikipedia. (Its article was made. --Love Krittaya (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

35 Navistar

36 Changhe

37 Mahindra & Mahindra Limited

38 Hino as sub. of Toyota

38 Porsche SE

39 MAN AG

40 Great Wall Motor

41 Proton Holdings Bhd

42 Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation

45 Scania AB

46 UAZ (Ulyanovsky Avtomobilny Zavod)

47 BYD Auto

48 China National Heavy Duty Truck Group

49 Fujian Motor Industry Group -- Soueast Motors

50 KAMAZ Inc.

--Love Krittaya (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I filled the gap, yes. I would also like to see all the other entries added. You could create a page for "Anhui" if you have the information, and for Beijing Auto, too. In your list above, from the OICA data, isn't NAC a subsidiary of SAIC? -- de Facto (talk). 10:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for I am not good English (User en-1) but interesting in cars. I wrote that 34-50 because I was confusing about "Anhui", ""Fujian" and "China National" in that OICA data, I did not know what are them, so I found that OICA report "China National" means China National Heavy Duty Truck Group.

I am confusing about NAC and SAIC too. According to NAC's enwiki article, On December 2007, the Nanjing Automobile and SAIC Motor announced a long-expected merger. That is mean they are not merge in 2006, the time of OICA report. --Love Krittaya (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

LIST REDUCED

TO TOP 20 ONLY. WHY 33? RATHER THEN MAKE IT THE TOP 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.62.131 (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why only the top 20? It is all valid and interesting information, and relevant to the article. For now I've restored the 33 already collated. Feel free to add the rest from the OICA list if you wish. -- de Facto (talk). 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article should clearly be the Top 20 vehicle manufacturers ONLY. The list on the top displays the Top 20 only and it would be disorganized to show all car manufacturers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmix (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I have two reasons. My first reason is all top 50 list is too long for someones (I am not mean they are anti Chinese automakers/cars), and my second reason is I am waiting for OICA's 2007 report. If OICA reported 2007 ranking of carmakers, edit this page. --Love Krittaya (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Top 20 makes a lot more sense, and is a lot more readable than "top 33" (why 33?). Additionally, entries 21 through 33 list a lot of subsidiaries and joint ventures, when the list should only include marques. I vote for staying with top 20. Tomh009 (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-marques now removed from the table. The table wasn't intended as a list of subsidiaries (which would be far larger) but rather as a list of marquest. Tomh009 (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the list should include all the world's globally recognised major vehicle marques, not just those which happen to be owned by large-volume parent groups. Take Aston Martin for example, under Ford it was in, as an independent maker should it now be left out? Porsche and Lotus are other important ommissions - should they be left out, whilst Bugatti, Ferrari and Lamborghini (even Dongfeng) are included? The list got to 33 because someone added SAIC, and a few other Chinese makers, and so I filled the gaps, with the intention (time permitting) to go all the way to 50. The criteria should be, perhaps, notability, rather than the production volume of the (current) parent group. -- de Facto (talk). 06:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

However, "notability" is inherently a judgement call and a POV as such. The page is Automotive industry -- maybe there should be a separate page (Automobile marques?) with an alphabetical list of marques and the corresponding manufacturers? -- Tomh009 (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is important that this article stays as much organized as possible. By including car makers beyond the Top 20, it will clearly become disorganized and stating that we should include an infinite amount of car makers will decrease the quality of this article. There are over 120 car groups worldwide and including ALL of them is not a solution. The aim of this article is to inform readers about the largest car groups in an organized way, not list every single car maker in the world. I want to avoid a edit warring with this user Kysrie but he has been clearly advised that there is a Wikipedia policy in which the original template should not be modified. See: WP:DTTR. Reverting the article again and again without any reason on the edit page or any comment on this talk page would amount to WP:VANDAL. Lakshmix (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Top 40 better reflects the global automotive industry, while still remaining organized. JosefBranson 14:45, 17 February 2009.

Top 25 only. Best reflects global automotive industry without being too long and disorganized. The full list is at Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.143.201 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the List reflect Top 20 manufcturers, since the full list is now on a different article (List of top automotive manufacturing groups)? Viddea9 12:34, 26 February 2009.

Why have the list in this article and have it repeated in another article? Why not then just remove all or most (beyond Top 20 or Top 25) of the list? 70.91.143.201 (talk)13:15, 24 March 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.143.209 (talk)

2007 data?

What's the outlook for OICA per-manufacturer data for 2007? I have the data from Automotive News' 2008 Global Market Data Book, but it does not break down the production figures into cars, light trucks, heavy trucks and buses. But if the OICA data will not be available for 2007, it would probably be the best option. Tomh009 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was July when it was published last year, so maybe there isn't too long to wait. -- de Facto (talk). 06:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's wait until the end of the month. If OICA doesn't publish by then, we'll go with the Automotive News data. -- Tomh009 (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New data is up http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/world-ranking-2007.pdf --— Typ932^{T | C}  09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

groups, along with their subsidiary or joint venture companies, and marques produced.

This article seems to be continous edits/reverts, so should be made clear what (and how many top) to include and what not, "groups, along with their subsidiary or joint venture companies, and marques produced" if we include all these the list isnt right... some have marques listed and some companies now --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So list marques or companies (including joint ventures?) or both, now it is messed with both. There isnt eg. marque called Renault Trucks --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a clear distinction between brands (marques), companies and groups, and the removal of the meaningless "division" description. Lincoln and Mercury are marques produced by Ford, they are not both separate divisions of Ford. Renault is a marque used by Renault Trucks, an AB Volvo subsidiary (nothing to do with the Ford subsidiary Volvo Cars) on trucks, but also used by the independent Renault S.A. group for cars. I experimented briefly back in May with a new table layout (see here), but it was quickly reverted. We probably also need to say what product (car, truck, bus) the marque is used for. The maximum number of entries can only be an arbitrary number, but perhaps all the groups in the OICA top 50 would be a good place to start. -- de Facto (talk). 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

50 is a much more logical number than 33. However, the list is already very long, and I do wonder whether it would be better separated into another article if we stretch it out to 50. As for the subsidiary/division question, it could even be empty if the marque does not have its own organizational unit, as you point out is the case for Mercury. -- Tomh009 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Typ932's original question, I think the current list of marques is fairly clean after some cleanup earlier this week; I did not spot any companies or joint ventures listed as marques. -- Tomh009 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Renault Trucks, Volvo trucks,mack trucks are companies , and what does this mean "along with their subsidiary or joint venture companies, and marques produced." according to this there shoould be also joint ventures... --— Typ932^{T | C}  20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of recent edits

User:Lakshmix please do not keep reverting to that same old out-of-date version. Each time you do it, you lose all the corrections, modifications and additions which have been made since it was current. For example; you lose the new paragraphs about production in 2007 and the rising oil prices in 2008, and you restore numerous errors, including the placing of Isuzu as a subsidiary of GM and jumbling-up its sort-order, and undoing several modifications to the markets of various brands. Please discuss your reasons for wishing doing this. -- de Facto (talk). 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I will keep the page up-to-date while maintaining the list organized within the Top 20. Thanks for letting me know.Lakshmix (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note that "Tata Daewoo Commercial Vehicles" is not a marque just like Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles isn't. And the table's intent is not to list the names of all the divisions and subsidiaries. --Tomh009 (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, Tomh009, I'm afraid you know very little regarding the Volkswagen Group of companies/brands/marques - as "Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles, along with Volkswagen Passenger Cars are most definately "marques" of the Group, albeit sold under the abbreviated "Volkswagen" tag. Furthermore, their public accounts are very separate, and their sales figures are also separate. Please check the Volkswagen Group website to verify, and stop incorrectly reverting correct edits to your mis-informed wrong edits. Rgds -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those are very much separate companies but I will argue that they are not separate marques (brands). As to the extent of my VW knowledge -- if you have concerns about it, please contact me on my talk page. I may not be quite as naive as you think ... -- Tomh009 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope User:Lakshmix to constrain from removing car makers.It's really useful to record and keep a clear and detailed list.Some lists upto 100 tops companies are also shown in wikipedia,if you wish,extend it to top 50 or top 100 will make sense,considering the automotive companies are really big--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to engage in an edit-war in anyway with you. The list is clearly disorganized because you are adding more carmakers than is required to demonstrate the Automotive Industry. The drop-down list includes the Top 20 only. You cannot keep on adding carmakers after carmakers (as you are doing right now) as it will become very disorganized. Also remember that car marques outside the Top 20 are either not internationally well-known or have little contribution to the Automotive Industry in terms of total vehicle production. The list has been concluded to include the Top 20 only since the start of this article and you are (as far as I can see) the only user keep adding these carmakers. I am not suggesting that you are adding Chinese car makers because you are Chinese but rather keeping the list within the Top 20 for the benefit of the Wikipedia community as a whole. If you read the Wikipedia guidelines, you will clearly see that articles should not be longer than their intended purpose and you are violating this statement if you continue to add carmakers that are not necessary. If you continue to revert the list, we will have to reach a consensus. Hope this clears up the issue. Lakshmix (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I add some carmakers it that the OCIA data of 2006 was not as accurate as it means to be,some carmaker such as SAIC made more than 1millions per years,deserves a top 20 place, was not listed.In a word,the orginal table is out of date,by adding some carmakers do make more sense to the current market trend--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with the list being longer than 20, if the additions are verifiable and notable. It could be argued that some of the marques are not well-known, but then what about the well-known marques which are not currently owned by large groups - such as Aston Martin and Lotus - should they be added? Perhaps the list should be reorganised to list only notable marques, regardless of their current parent group? I think the list should be as inclusive as possible, with no arbitrary limit on the number of entries. -- de Facto (talk). 08:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But what's a "notable" marque? Aston Martin? Maple? Bugatti? Packard? I think this is POV territory. How about creating a comprehensive Automobile marques page, where all marques can be listed (alphabetically) along with their owners? -- Tomh009 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. There is no defined definition of which car marque is significant. This article is about the Automotive Industry not a "List of all car marques". Create a separate page for that. Until this is done, the list will remain at the Top 20 for the justifications I have stated before.Lakshmix (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability doesnt rely on personal judgement,it seems almost all the participants agree to add more except you,so please accept the consensus.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" is well defined within the Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:NOTE). What is actually more a personal POV is the decision to cut off the list of manufacturers at some arbitrary point, and not to cover the full list from the sited source (the OICA 50 in this case). If we are to limit the list to 20, we need a robust and supportable reason to do so. We cannot rely on the fact that the list used to have only 20 entries in it. The reference gives 50, so should we - or justify the cut-off point. -- de Facto (talk). 08:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

From history page of this article, I seen there are revert war. Lakshmix is trying to keep it only 20 automakers. And Ksyrie try to keep "33 automakers version". Sorry for I am busy in this time, because of my midterm exams, but I think 40 may better if Ksyrie want to keep 33 automakers. Or trying to wait OICA's new data, or using Tomh009's Automotive News' 2008 Global Market Data Book. (Sorry for my not good level of using English language) --Love Krittaya (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the 2007 version of OICA data, and the 35 automakers in the table (ตาราง). --Love Krittaya (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

40 automakers now. --Love Krittaya (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

article is misleading

The title of the article clearly states "Automotive industry", yet recent edit-wars seem to think the best way is to list ONLY marques. As the article is clearly about the "industry" (ie, the design, R&D and manufacture) as a whole, and the lead paras clearly indicate that cars, and the various types of commercial vehicles are included, the tables should most definately include the automotive "company" as the first instance, and include the "marque" produced by that company as a secondary field of entry.

To list "marques" as the primary source in the table is extremely misleading, as many marques are often produced by two different companies - two examples: "Audi AG" and "quattro GmbH" both produce cars under the "Audi" marque, and Vauxhall Motors along with Adam Opel GmbH both produce identical Vectras, Astras, Corsas etc at their individual factories, but are sold under either the "Opel", "Vauxhall", or "Holden" marques.

The referenced figures seem to clearly show output from the specific automotive company - and therefore, this is how we should be displaying it here in this article - as companies and not marques. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The company vs model vs brand topic is a complex one -- in your second example, the Astras are also sold as Saturn Astras, with only minor changes. And yet a Ford Focus is a (well, almost) completely different car in Europe and in North America. On top of that companies such as Magna-Steyr do contract manufacturing for multiple manufacturers. There are so many combinations that I don't know that it's really practicable to present them in a Wiki table.

As to primary vs secondary, I may misunderstand your comments, but in the current "top 33" (ugh) table, the companies are indeed the first level, and the marques produced by each company the second level. Could you please clarify your comments? -- Tomh009 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen Group issue

Following the recent Porsche buyingout VW news,is it suitabe to place VW under Porsche marque?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So far Porsche has only indicated intent to purchase additional shares -- it has not happened yet. -- 90.152.65.218 (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Porsche was already Volkswagen's biggest shareholder and just lifted its stake to 42.6 percent. They were, and still are the majority share holder. Refer to CNN: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.39.238 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

42.6% is not a majority, and doesn't make VW a subsidiary. However, today Porsche announced that Porsche Automobil Holding now owns over 50% (as well as a majority of Porsche AG). So now VW really is part of PAH. Tomh009 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Truckmakers but made zero trucks and buses

Shannxi Auto and China National are truckmakers, but OICA report they are made 0 LCVs, 0 HCVs, and 0 Buses, all numbers are cars. Anhui Jianghuai is also made trucks (and cars), but all numbers are cars too. I don't think that OICA was wrong. I think that companies was report wrong types of motor vehicles, or report only the total/overall numbers. (Sorry for asking about Chinese automakers, but I seen not-Chinese makers' numbers in the report are not wrong columns). --Love Krittaya (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems the methodology of classification has problem.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyundai Kia Automotive Group

In this article, there are Hyundai and Kia. The OICA statistics rank the Hyundai and Kia separately. (I am not sure about it is same reasons as Toyota and Daihatsu or not.) --Love Krittaya (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Proton

Surely this car manufacturer deserves a mention, I cannot imagine that they produce fewer cars then some of the smaller companies up on the list. Also note that they own Lotus, which should at least be mentioned elsewhere in the article, if only from a technological perspective. (Wiz9999 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

Proton does deserve to be mentioned, but it cannot be placed randomly on the chart. Viddea9 20:28, 22 February 2009

blanking

We have one editor who does not want to hear about the troubles of the auto industry. The sections he blanked are fully sources, and based chiefly on reports from the Congressional Research Service and CAR (a leading think tank for the industry). The material deals with economics which is the central topic in recent years regarding the INDUSTRY that this article is about. If there are alternative POVs, which I doubt, then Wiki says we ADD the other views and do not erase.Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A long POV essay based on a single source of specuation about the 2008 situation in America at the top of what is supposed to be a global and historical article, stands out like a sore thumb, is full of undesirable and unencyclopoedic wording and crystal balling speculation, and is a clear violation of style and recentism. It should not be in that form in that place, and a blanket reversion in face of well founded concerns is totally ignorant. NPOV is not about countering one POV essay with another POV essay, that is nonsense. The fact your very first sentence seeks to apply a malcious motive to my action is also a clear personal attack. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1) It is not POV, as it represenets the general consensus of experts. (In cases of true POV Wiki rules are that alternative views should be added but the original should NOT be blanked out). Not a single statement has been identified as POV; 2) the sources are very high quality--the official Congressional research agency and the leading auto industry think tank; 3) the economics details show the importance of the industry as it links to employment in the USA--they are not speculation but the product of econometric analysis by the leading experts; 4) the wording is not "unencyclopedic"--it sticks pretty close to the original sober sources; 5) "violation of style" = gibberish; 6) as for the history role of the article being threatened, that is amusing because actually I have been the one to write all the historical sections in it (on Germany and Japan, with more coming) while MickMacNee has never made a single contribution to this article. The section he deleted reports historical information over the last several decades, such as the role of the transplants, the cost of labor, the role of gas mileage. The importance of the ongoing bankruptcy crisis in the industry should be apparent to most folks. People hear it on the news every day and look to Wiki to provide good information, which is the goal here. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'user has never contributed to the article' to defend the practice of ownership and 'people come to wikipedia to find information' to defend rampant recentism and inclusion of recentist essays are commonly trotted out but totally weak arguments. The paragraph has one source, the paragraph is misplaced, the paragraph is a screaming piece of soapboxing POV and essay style writing. If you realy want to write about the recent events in the American auto industry, then put it in a more appropriate article than a general article that is supposed to cover the whole world and the entire history of the topic. It is rank ignorance to think that every visitor to this article is only looking for information about how the US big three are about to go under (which is a total violation of not crystall balling by the way). MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

readers of this article will find a great deal of historical information about the US auto industry over the last several decades. "Recentism" I suppose refers to all the "World motor data" (2007 data), which comprises most of the article. There is no crystal ball here--nobody knows what will happen and the article does not predict the future. It reports what leading analysis are saying; their analysis is widely discussed in the US and therefore belong in Wiki. The sources are the most reliable that exist, chiefly a major long study by the nonpartisan bureau of Congress that studies major issues. No one has pointed to a single sentence that is inaccurate or POV or irrelevant to the auto industry. As for covering the whole world, that means coverage of the US, Germany, Japan etc, which is underway. The screaming and blanking have been done by MickMacNee who fails to cite a single source for his strange belief that the economic troubles of the automobile industry are unimportant and should not be covered in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Current US market woes

Umm, is this article the correct place to add all these bits up front about the current US market issues? This smacks of current news journalism. There have been market drops in many countries throughout the years, and this is by no means a fundamental bit of information concerning the Automotive Industry. Icsunonove (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This certainly deserves a place somewhere in WP as the auto industry is in really bad shape at the moment. How about a separate article entitled "2008 U.S. automotive industry crisis". The intro could explain how the big three have reached a state where they are no longer competitive with foreign manufacturers. As a result of the current financial crisis, they appear to be within weeks of bankruptcy unless there is some kind of federal bailout. There could then be an analysis of the deteriorating state of each of the big three and how they could adapt to a more profitable situation. This could be followed by a discussion of developments on bailout funding, etc. Finally there could be a week-by-week description of developments. Any volunteers?- Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

a central fact about the history of the auto industry since 1900 has been the collapse of many companies. The US has a Big Three--those are the survivors of over 1000 companies that went banbkrupt. In Britain ALL the makers went under. In that perspective, 2008 is "normal" (what makes it different is that it is all happening at once and so very fast). Rjensen (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A seperate article might make sense, but my opinion is this stuff should be pulled out of this article. It is dominating this article at the moment. Icsunonove (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the Crisis section has now been reduced as I've made a start on a separate article Automotive industry crisis of 2008. Further contributions to this (including references) would be much appreciated. -Ipigott (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And I've moved the crisis section to come after the history section, which seems more appropriate, given that all the rest of the history in the article starts in the past and has the most recent stuff last. Dricherby (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)