Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Not urban legend

I deleted the description of the "General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy" as an "urban legend" because it begs the question by placing the arguments in the same categories as fanciful rumors such as women dying of spider nests in their hairdos. Cecropia 01:00, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This story perfectly fits the definition of "urban legend". It exhibits multiple instances with variation (thereby qualifying as folklore) and has the further attributes of being a narrative that seems plausible and is alleged to be true, yet contains aspects which are vague, unproven and of unclear origin. The term "urban legend" really really ought to be on the page somewhere. ( By the way, this seems like a much more balanced account of both sides of the argument: http: //www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/General-Motors-streetcar-conspiracy )

--Blogjack (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - that article is a mirror of this article, presumably from some time in the past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My grandparents remember this event, they lived in Los Angeles. My great-grandparents told us about this, and they lived just 50 feet from the nearest stop in Los Angeles, just like everyone in that large valley. This is not an urban legend, it is a historical event, and my family can tell you about it. Ask anybody born before 1930 who has lived in or near a city in the United States during this era and they will tell you that you are wrong. My family watched it happen. Images of America is an excellent photographic journey of American history, good, bad, and ugly, if you go to your local library and pull out the issue on the large city closest to you and you will find the streetcars. It doesn't matter where in the USA you live, we all had them. Don't use wikipedia to further your political goals. Stidmatt (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Do be aware that this article has changed radically since 2004-2008 when most of the comments in this section were made. As such it is probably best to treat them as history now and focus on the current article and more recent comments. PeterEastern (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The CATO institute stuff

There was some stuff that seemed far too detailed for the introduction, so I moved it into its own section, but then I started to wonder why we have this in the article in the first place -- it's basically just a verbatim duplication of something from an external website. It also seems like an attempt to insert bias-by-proxy. Would it be more appropriate for this to be put in the "Further Reading" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.142.191.210 (talk) 16:16, August 22, 2007 (UTC) Well, hearing no comments to the contrary, I just went ahead and did what I suggested above. 72.142.191.210 20:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reducing CATO to a link down in Further reading. I took a look at the linked pdf article; it completely avoids mention of the 1948 US vs. NCL proceedings. I think the CATO article is biased and revisionist. Binksternet 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's biased and revisionist, it's CATO. They don't let the facts get in the way of anything. Stidmatt (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The CATO Institute continued

Binksternet, at least you agreed to have an opposing point of view in the article. Klippa deleted all text referencing it entirely. I have added a separate section called "Opposing Argument." I think rational minds will agree that both sides of this issue should be displayed, especially, when one side has at least one valid and sourced reference. Not just a newspaper article, but a full study.

I don't delete sections of the alleged claim because it leaves out important points the CATO study mentions.Hoopsworldscout 02:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem with bringing in an opposing point of view if it were more balanced than the revisionist CATO hit piece we see in the PDF link. I wonder why CATO makes no mention of the court case and its outcome... Personally, I would rather not see the CATO disinformation material given such a welcome on this wiki page. CATO should be limited to a link in "Further reading".

The strongest contemporary arguments against streetcars were these: people who lived near them said they found them too noisy, and streetcars began to be seen by middle and upper class citizens as a low-class transportation form. The lawyer and the stock broker didn't want to be riding the same train as their maid or gardener. Another point that CATO misses completely is that small businesses thrive near rail stops due to the apparent permanence of rails but there is not as much of a rise in small business near bus line stops--the business owners don't hold as much faith in the bus line sticking around long enough for them to turn a profit. Binksternet 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out the added CATO section. Any usage of the word myth or the phrase urban legend has no place in this article. There is certainly room in the article for a section that lists and describes opposing arguments but I don't want to see a block quote from CATO. Binksternet 16:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that the Cato arguments are needed to preserve balance it would be better to summarize their points rather than presnet a blockquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cato would be appropriate to put on only if they were bringing in the facts, but they don't look at the facts when it doesn't support their libertarian agenda. They don't care about the facts. They are unimportant in this subject and unconnected to this article. It is as inappropriate to source them for this as it would be to source Rush Limbaugh for President Obama. Someone needs to remove their link. Stidmatt (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fix introduction

This article has been vandalized by users who are trying to support CATO and friends' agenda. They have changed the name to something that is unrecognizable, nobody in the world who knows about this calls it the "general motors streetcar conspiracy" you will not find that in primary sources. The real name of this is "Great American Streetcar Scandal" because that is the only name that is used in primary sources. We need to block the accounts of people who have destroyed this article for one according to our official policy of "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" which has been done by these libertarians. Most of the article text remains intact, but the introduction and "other factors" section are catastrophes with no other purpose than keep this very real, and remembered in some circles once you ask them about it, event unknown. Somebody needs to take out the weasel words and make it agree with the body of the text. Also, remove the CATO reference, it is unreliable and propaganda. Stidmatt (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you to review your comment above as you have made some very broad claims about the article and accusations about (unnamed) contributors. In particular I don't feel that your use of the words 'catastrophe', 'propaganda' and 'vandalism' are call for. With reference to the 'other factors' section, which other factors do you feel are not relevant? Are you sure that the CATO references is not suitably put into context? Also, could you reconsider your view that editors should be banned - and if you do still feel that certain editors should be banned that I ask you to name them and give evidence as to why - in particular I am interested to know if I am on the list, given that I was the author of most of the 'other factors' section :) PeterEastern (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the name, there is an archived discussion above giving the motivations for the change of name. Personally I can't get that concerned about it either way, however there is reasonable evidence that the 'Great American Streetcar Scandal' name was an invention of Wikipedia and hadn't been used extensively before the article was created. PeterEastern (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I was introduced to this subject in school and never once did my teacher call it "General Motors Streetcar conspiracy" which I had never heard before we changed the name. We watched the video "Taken for a Ride" which uses primary sources to tell the story, something the CATO report which the introduction is based on doesn't. Both terms now have thousands of references on Google, but only one has auto-fill, the former name, while the new name asks if you meant the old name for the article. Looking on Google Trends there isn't enough volume on a search to cover this, most of the searches are for history students like myself. It looks to me like over a long amount of time (in wikipedia standards) the words in the beginning were diluted from the accurate:

"The Great American streetcar scandal (also known as the General Motors streetcar conspiracy and the National City Lines conspiracy) is an event in the history of American public transportation in which streetcar systems throughout the United States were dismantled and replaced with buses in the mid-20th century as a result of illegal actions by a number of prominent companies acting through National City Lines (NCL), Pacific City Lines (on the West Coast, starting in 1938), and American City Lines (in large cities, starting in 1943).[1][2]"

from 02:45, 16 August 2010 which had sources as you can see to the very misleading and completely unsourced introduction it has now:

"The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the National City Lines conspiracy) refers to allegations and convictions in relation to a program by General Motors (GM) and a number of other companies to purchase and dismantle streetcars (trams/trolleys) and electric trains in many cities across the United States and replace them with bus services. The lack of clear information about exactly what occurred has led to intrigue, inaccuracy and conspiracy theories with some citing it as the primary reason for the virtual elimination of effective public transport in American cities by the 1970s. The story has been explored several times in print, film and other media, notably in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Taken for a Ride and The End of Suburbia."

I can tell a huge difference between the two. Why did they do this? This is against official Wikipedia policy. I recommend reverting back to that date I posted above immediately.

-- Stidmatt (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have now added the word 'immediately' to your earlier use of 'catastrophe', 'propaganda', 'vandalism' and 'weasel' which all seems a bit over the top to me. For sure, we can make the article better, but it is probably best to tone down the language. Also.. I believe that the earlier wording of "streetcar systems throughout the United States were dismantled...as a result of illegal actions" is incorrect, given that, as the article now explains in the 'other factors' section, there were other factors at work and that the 'reach' of the conspiracy was limited to a relatively small number of US cities. Also.. references are not normally in the lead as long as all the claims made in the lead are correctly sourced in the main article (which I believe they are). I note that you have not listed the people you believe should be blocked. PeterEastern (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cato & issues at stake here

Cate Institute with its libertarian leanings would be perfect for the transit-free universe. The environmental analogue to the ramifications of a transit-free environment. So why scrub Cato discussion.Dogru144 (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to sections of the talk page that has been archived. They are still available - see 'Archive 2' and possibly also 'Archive 1' (top right of this page). Archiving is an automatic function I believe that avoids talk pages getting longer and longer over time. PeterEastern (talk)

Interurbans and this page

Interurbans were streetcar systems that went between cities. One could go hundreds of miles on interurbans, from one city, relaying to another. Their existence totally illustrated the situation of massive covering of the US with streetcars. How can this present article be free of discussion of this?

Similarly, many cities have broad avenues with grassy or tree-lined meridian strips? New Orleans comes to mind. Were these once paths of urban streetcar routes?

Overall, The spatial vestige of former routes ought to be noted. One should not be ignorant, ideally, of the landscape of former streetcar routes. Not just to understand the past, but to also understand the right of way potential for re-establishing service. Lastly, wikipedia needs a page on movements, as in Washington, DC, to reestablish streetcar lines

-- Dogru144 (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Dogru144 (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the actions, allegations and court case relating to the actions of GM and others which seem to focus on urban services, not inter-urban ones. A separate article may be needed for those. Regarding the vestiges of former routes, I would suggest that they should be mentioned here - can you provide some specific examples in cities listed in the lead para to this article? PeterEastern (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This articel is about "General Motors (GM) and other companies who purchased and then dismantled streetcar and electric train systems in many American cities." Electric train systems do include interurbans. Most of them, like Pacific Electric, were interurbans. Pål Jensen (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In the UK an 'inter-urban' service is just that, one that takes people between major urban centres. It may also call an a limited number of points along the way, but it isn't the same as a 'suburban' service which is intended to take people from the suburbs and nearby smaller settlements into the urban centre. A suburban service may sometimes also go between larger urban centres, but will often have stopped so many times that anyone wishing to do the whol journey will take the interurban service instead, indeed in the UK an surburban service will often not even be shown as going the whole way if it is better to take a faster train. Is the terminology different in the USA? PeterEastern (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

This page, particularly its lead, is a disaster—unique among many in its ability to hurt my head every time I look at it. The historical name changes are even more difficult to follow. One source of conflict is that the 'GM streetcar conspiracy' describes one specific alleged event. This event is part of a larger and much more verifiable trend in the decline of streetcars and the rise of automobiles. I propose that General Motors streetcar conspiracy be an article primarily about General Motors and National City Lines. A new article would contain a section on the streetcar scandal and all companies involved, and it would link to this article. However, the new article could focus more broadly on changes to the US transport system. It would have room for analyses like this one, which discuss the broader connection between auto companies and the planning of cities. In the meantime, I will try to edit this article for readability. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know how to navigate the ref group style of references yet. Maybe someone can help clean up after my edit. Thanks. groupuscule (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to create a new article on 'decline of streetcars and the rise of automobiles in the USA' then please do so. I am however concerned about people coming leaping into this article, which has been developed over a considerable time with a lot of input and care from many people, and changing it in considerable ways. In particular I am not happy with your use of the phrase 'alleged plot' in the first sentence given that there was a court case and that there were convictions and fines for conspiracy - the original text which read 'allegations and convictions' seems more accurate in my view. Can I suggest that you await for feedback on this talk page in relation to your proposals before making considerable edits to the article? What are other peoples' views on the proposed changes to the lead? PeterEastern (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that this article should limit itself to GM and NCL only, I disagree given that all the organisations, people and places mentioned in this article are relate to the scandal as far as I can see. The 'other factors' section is also needed to cover all the other related reasons for the decline in transit without which the 'case for the defense' with be greatly weakened. This section could however be expanded on in the separate article you propose but the bones of section should in my view remain in this one. PeterEastern (talk)

Hi PeterEastern, I didn't mean to insult your hard work on a complicated topic. I was just trying to be real about how confusing the lead section was—I think due to small interventions by several editors trying to emphasize different parts of the story without an eye to cohesion. I also agree with you that entities besides GM and NCL should be part of this article; it makes sense to cover many instances of public transit lines being purchased and converted during the first half of the century. (I do have to express some frustration with the article having moved from "Great American streetcar scandal", which is more general and, IMO, accurate.) I am fine with including mention of conviction in the lead... I just wanted to change that sentence because it was really difficult to read, particularly for someone unfamiliar with the details of the case. I would like to create a separate article but I have no problem with a small section on 'other factors' remaining here. groupuscule (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You can go back up the talk page to see the reasoning for the page move: "Great American Streetcar Scandal" was not in any of the reliable sources at the time the article was so named. That particular name was a made-up one, brought here by one editor. Since his page move the "Great American Streetcar Scandal" has gotten wider play, skewing the results you see now in searches.

Regarding the content of the article body, I think it should discuss all the players including Mack Truck, Firestone, NCL... the whole lot. The article's current title identifies the leader of the conspiracy—GM—but the subordinate members must be discussed.

Regarding the confusing patchwork writing style: yes, there is room for improvements to reading flow and increased comprehension. Incremental improvements, please. I would not favor throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusion other use of quote marks within notes

This section was originally titled 'POV'. However, as the discussion developed it became clear that it is actually about the correct use of quote marks around text quoted in the notes.

Its been a while since I've looked at this article. I am surprised at the amount of POV laced commentary embedded in reference notes. Frankly I've never seen a wikipedia article with so many reference notes. I haven't analyzed the edit history, but it sure looks like someone has pushed their POV outside of the more neutral main text that everyone else is so concerned with. We have:

"The issue is whether or not the buses that replaced the electric streetcars were economically superior. Without GM's interference would the United States today have a viable streetcar system? This article makes the case that under a less onerous regulatory environment, buses would have replaced streetcars even earlier than they actually did."

"Members of GM's special unit went to, among others, the Southern Pacific, owner of Los Angeles' Pacific Electric, the world's largest interurban, with 1,500 miles of track, reaching 75 miles from San Bernardino, north to San Fernando, and south to Santa Ana; the New York Central, owner of the New York State Railways, 600 miles of street railways and interurban lines in upstate New York; and the New Haven, owner of 1,500 miles of trolley lines in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In each case, by threatening to divert lucrative automobile freight to rival carriers, they persuaded the railroad (according to GM's own files) to convert its electric street cars to motor buses -- slow, cramped, foul-smelling vehicles whose inferior performance invariable led riders to purchase automobiles."

"Snell’s report can also be misleading (apparently intentionally so). Snell says, "In 1940, GM, Standard Oil and Firestone assumed an active control in Pacific (City Lines)… That year, PCL began to acquire and scrap portions of the $100 million Pacific Electric System (of Roger Rabbit fame)." This statement implies that PCL was getting control of Pacific Electric, when in reality, all they did was acquire the local streetcar systems of Pacific Electric in Glendale and Pasadena and then convert them to buses. Many superficial readers jump on this statement as proof that GM moved in the Red Cars of the Pacific Electric. The ugly little fact is that PCL never acquired Pacific Electric (it was owned by Southern Pacific Railroad until 1953)."

"GM (significantly) formed a new subsidiary, United Cities Motor Transport (UCMT) and looked around to gobble up transit companies to replace its equipment with GM buses."

"The real villain of this piece was a Tammany Hall hack mayor, John F. Hylan, supported by the Hearst Papers. William Randolph Hearst had been supporting a populist campaign against the so-called "Traction Trusts" for years and his crony was probably just following orders."

"So let’s not forget the words of Charlie Wilson when asked if there were a conflict with his former employer (GM) on his possible appointment to Secretary of Defense in 1953. He replied, "I cannot conceive of one because for years, I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."

"According to Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.) documents, the transit system’s bank would get a visit from GM promising deposits if the bank would lean on the transit company to not buy more streetcars. Converting to bus was easy, with the local banks assistance and, of course, easy financing from GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation)."

"City planning was a relatively new field in the 1930s and few accredited institutions taught the subject. However, one such accredited institution did and it was GMI (General Motors Institution which took over the Flint Institute of Technology in 1926). And you can imagine what the fledgling city planners learned: traffic engineering (buses are good; railways are bad)."

"Outstanding systems like the Chicago North Shore Line (which operated from the northern suburbs into Chicago on the elevated loop until 1962) were allowed to go bankrupt and be scrapped"

"Indeed, in San Francisco and Seattle, it arranged for one of its former regional bus managers, the ex-president of its United Cities subsidiary, to become manager and transit czar. In northern New Jersey, Atlanta, Kansas City, Denver, Dallas, and Houston, it relied on banking connections to facilitate abandonment; in Chicago and Milwaukee, it relied on Greyhound, Omnibus, City Coach, and National; in Portland, on United Cities, Pacific Cities and Manning Transportation; in Miami, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, and Pittsburgh, on freelance agents and former GM and National officials; in New Orleans and Indianapolis, on gifts to high-placed executives; in Minneapolis, on unprincipled gangsters."

There is an awful lot of opinion and commentary included in these "references." This is written in a voice that seems to be trying to sway an argument. By our guidelines, we should not be putting these kind of statements into wikipedia's voice. Some of this deeper information, the factual statements, probably belongs in the text of the article, in a more neutral tone. A lot of it shouldn't be here at all, or if included, an attribution to the argumentative commentary should be quoted or cited. Trackinfo (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in understanding that your issue is with the quotations included in the references and not with the text of the article itself? If so, then is there some specific WP: guidance on when and how one should use these quotes in references? If there is then I would like to read it. Fyi, I was the main author the article some time back and used quotes extensively because I understood that it was good practice to do so, in particular to make it easier to deal with dead links in the future. PeterEastern (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I used quotation marks to show what is currently in the reference remarks. Did you place those there? Are those quotes from those sources? If so, then that should be better specified. The wikipedia guidance is that quotes and opinions should be attributed and not in wikipedia's voice. The wikipedia voice should be factual. Without quotation marks, those look like argumentative statements and should not be here, either in the article text or one should assume, reference remarks (which would just be a sneaky way to include what shouldn't be in wikipedia). If they are true quotes, perhaps they should be in the article text and attributed to those sources. Either way, putting that much content into reference remarks seems out of standard. Trackinfo (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, all of the above are direct quotes from sources and are all from the references section of the article and all are tagged in the citations as 'quotes'. I understood that it was good practice to use them, and given all the disputes running through the history of this article before I reworked it, I thought it was better to provide more detail rather than less in the references. Here is an example of a citiation with a quote from the article: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c82j697s/|title=Finding Aid for the Los Angeles Railway Corporation Legal Records and Correspondence|quote=the controlling interest remained part of the Huntington estate until 1945 when the Fitzgerald Brothers purchased those shares. LARy became part of the National City Lines, was renamed the Los Angeles Transit Lines, and eventually the streetcars were phased out, replaced by motor buses.}}</ref>. I don't ever put my own voice into references, and indeed don't actually know what tag one should use when one does. Given the potential confusion between personal comments and quotes thrown up by this thread, I wonder if the WP formatting template for citations could be adjusted to direct quotes clearer. PeterEastern (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why it is good to discuss points in talk rather than making massive re-edits when you are confused. And knowing the history of people trying to slant this article, I can see the need for you to feed the factually impaired. So you have probably done the correct thing, but the references with all the quotes does look weird. What initially caught my eye was the absence of quotation marks on the argumentative statement by Span. Reading the source, I see it is a direct quote. #18 Same thing with the Snell quote above it. #17 Missing minor little marks change the attribution and those are repeated on down. It will just take time to go back in, read the source and properly place quotation marks where they are actual quotes. Trackinfo (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think we are getting somewhere now in clearing this up. Comparing the formatting of 'Notes' and 'Other notes' at the end of this article it is now clear to me that with the normal citations, as used for the 'Other notes' quotations marks added automatically around the text in the 'quote' element (which is good and makes it clear that they are quotes). However... in the 'Notes' section these need to be added manually, which I have done inconsistently to date, making the quotes at times look like the WP editor's voice. The complexity is increased when the text I have quoted includes a subsidiary quote. I have now corrected the quotations for three of these as follows: 'n-2', 'n-4' and 'n-5'. Also for n-17 and n-18 as you refer to above. Is that better? If so, then I will also correct the rest (including n-10, n-11, n-12, n-13 etc). How should one handle notes containing notes? Have I done it right for n-18? If not then can you correct it? PeterEastern (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now added quote-marks to all the outstanding references as per my proposal above. PeterEastern (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent Los Angeles history

Bonewah and another editor removed Peter Eastern's replacement of the contemporary use of Pacific Electric Railway easements on the flimsy excuse that it was not relevant. While the short paragraph is shorthand, it is remarkable that after the devastation of the transit system in the 1950's, through four decades of political and economic struggle, the area managed to retain the easements and put them BACK in service starting in 1990. Lets go further. More than just historical notes, such restored use shows the viability of those routes to this day and reenforces the suggestion that the removal of this service was artificially caused by the conspiracy. On multiple levels this is completely relevant to the article.

Additionally the Orange Line uses an old Pacific Electric Railway easement as an enclosed busway and portions of other lines in the system use old Pacific Electric easements too.

-- Trackinfo (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I have added the Orange Line to the list - I left it off before because it is actually a bus rapid transit line rather than a streetcar, however it does use an old red-car route, consist of multiple carriages and doesn't have to share its route with general traffic which I guess makes it notable for the subject. PeterEastern (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that this isnt an article about streetcars generally, but about the General Motors streetcar conspiracy specifically. Adding info about modern streetcar projects to "show the viability of those routes to this day" is obvious OR, Synthesis specifically, in that you are combining information from multiple sources to advance an idea that is not explicitly stated. If you have a source about the GM streetcar conspiracy that explicitly makes the connection you are making, then cite it and we are good. If not, then we need to delete the portions in question and, perhaps add links to the see also section for the orange line, yellow line or whatever modern lines. Bonewah (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it help to mention Quinby's prediction from 1946 that "You will realize too late that the electric railway is unquestionably more comfortable, more reliable, safer and cheaper to use than the bus system. But what can you do about it once you have permitted the tracks to be torn up? Who do you think you can find to finance another deluxe transit system for your city…?"? [1] Would it also help to find a source proving that the authorities consciously retained the routes used by the Blue, Expo and Orange lines to allow for their possible reinstatement later? Would that create the link that you are looking for to avoid any suggestion of OR or Synthesis? One could also mention the considerable costs associated with reinstating these lines as mentioned in the the same document: "The taxpayers of the Bay Area funded billions for BART. The Feds (and locals) funded billions and billions for new electric transit systems in San Jose, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Dallas, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Denver, Portland, and others–all cities whose systems had been unwisely removed. Quinby was right. And more than being right, he tried to do something about it and nearly succeeded." Personally I think the paragraph should be expanded based on this source to mention other affected cities and their efforts to rebuilt streetcar systems. PeterEastern (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how you word it and what you would like to say. Remember our job is to accurately reflect what the reliable sources say about the subject, not to show the viability of a route, or of streetcars generally, or to prove that Quinby was right or wrong. Also remember that the subject here is the streetcar conspiracy, not streetcars generally. Bonewah (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For sure. Equally, I would be happy for you to look for the right wording and take it up from there. What I think we are agree on, is that the para is justified, with the right phrasing based on the contents of the idenitifed references. PeterEastern (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum this: "In recent decades, many American cities have started reconstructing new streetcar systems, light rail, and other public transport systems. By way of example, Los Angeles has recently opened a number of streetcar lines: Blue Line (1990), Orange Line (2005) and Expo Line (2012), all of have high usage and run along routes previously used by Pacific Electric Railway (Red Car) services." is unreferenced and needs to be either removed or cited properly. I dont think its either necessary or warranted but if you want to take a shot at rewriting it based on a reliable source, ill give you my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Citations for all of this claim are available in the linked articles at the click of a button. I have provided citations for the relevance to this article above and was proposing that you worked on it. If you don't wish to do so then please give others time to do so. I see no call for the deletion of the text for a third time as you have just done. I will sort it in the next 48 hours if no one else does. PeterEastern (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bonewah, now you are just getting childish by trying to delete content while a discussion is going on--a discussion you invited. I added additional references to the specific points. Trackinfo (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, there is no reason to be insulting, Wikipedia rules state that unreferenced materials should be challenged and removed. You arent deprived of anything, i cut and paste the content here for further discussion and I have a hard time believing that hitting the revert button was such a burden on you. Peter Eastern asked for 48 hours, ill happily grant that, you need only say that you intend to address my concerns. Bonewah (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing something, repeatedly certainly looks like you are trying to enforce a POV. It looks like edit warring. You challenged the referencing of the content and removed it in one step. You had not previously challenged the referencing, only that you thought it was not relevant. Which flimsy excuse is it, not relevant or not referenced? Peter Eastern and I addressed relevance. So you come up with a different excuse. Your main agenda is obviously to remove that line by whatever means you can come up with. I have now addressed referencing, 4 sources. Trackinfo (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, ease back. Why don't you try some good faith, my 'flimsy excuse' is one of the 3 Core content policies that govern Wikipedia, that of verifiability. By the way, my other reason for removing this, that i felt it was OR is one of the other core content policies. If these things look like 'enforcing a POV' or edit warring, then maybe the problem is with *your* attitude, not my behavior. Bonewah (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... personally I get concerned when people start waving the rule-book around too enthusiastically. On that subject, if you are going to start quoting the rule-book, possibly people should also take a look at WP:NOCITE, in particular the section about un-cited content which reads: "If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time". For the record, I added a fact tag to the relevant content a few days ago when I spotted that it was uncited (but not harmful) with the intention of returning to deal with it in the next few days. Regarding OR, I believe we established above that it was not OR in that appropriate citations were available. With regard to 'enforcing POV', and arguing who's attitude causing a problem, can I politely suggest that there does seem to have been a reasonably degree of good faith on both sides (for which I thank everyone), but that this appears to be getting a bit strained in the face of repeated deletion of content. However... shall we treat this as 'water under the bridge' now and move on? On that note, are you now satisfied that the paragraph can stand and is appropriately cited? PeterEastern (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite for balance and readability

This section developed into a proposal by some editors to try to rework the content into a new form in a user sandbox page User:Springee/streetcar conspiracy to address a perceived lack of balance and readibility. This appears to have subsequently stalled with no significant work on it over the four months, in which time the main article has been developed and edited in other ways. As such it is probably best to treat this proposal as being of historical interest only now. PeterEastern (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)}

While I think much of the recent work has made the article more coherent, I would like to see more information regarding dicenting views. Much of the older material covering Slater's article debunking much of the myth has been largely removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.27.246 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

By 'debunking the myth' I assume you are of the view that this article is describing a myth? Personally I don't think it is helpful to describe it as a myth given the court case and the convictions. I do however agree that the significance of the conspiracy is often over-played in a simplistic way in the wider-world and have tried to detail other factors leading to the streetcars decline in the 'Other factors' section. I note that the bullet-point in that section on congestion was removed from that section some time ago which I will add back. It wasn't referenced but is certainly very significant. Lets find a reference for it. PeterEastern (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is it's not really clear the article is describing a "myth" vs simply stating much of the information as historical fact. The problem with the current article is it largely leads the reader to the conclusion that "GM is guilty... oh and some people have some other ideas." While it is a fact that all the alleged conspirators were taken to court, it's also a fact that they were found innocent of the egregious crime of destroying public transit systems. The crime of which they were found guilty was relatively minor (forcing their own companies to buy from themselves). Many reader will overlook the acquittal and still see GM as tried and convicted. Describing the legend/myth in detail is fine but it should be clear when the article is describing the common narrative of the conspiracy theory then when it switches to a review of historic facts actual facts and finally a section describing the varied theories and explanations of the decline in street cars in the US (both systems GM ripped up - systems that were in financial trouble before GM came in - AND the other factors which drove the fall of systems GM didn't own).

Basically the current article doesn't do a good job of telling the narrative vs offering a review of the facts.

Finally, I agree with an earlier poster who said that unless the funding and political leanings of all sources are listed, it inappropriately biases the reader if one source's funding is cast in a negative light. Additional information about the CATO institute should be found via the link to the CATO institute. I would ask that you show, within the WIKI rules a justification for keeping the comment about funding in the main article. —

- Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.27.246 (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, can I request that your register on Wikipedia so that your contributions are correctly attributed? To date your comments have be unsigned and are from an anonymous IP address. (you can then use ~~~ to sign you comments btw).

Regarding the balance of the lead, I do agree that some minor adjustments would seem to be appropriate, particularly given the recent edits which have yet to settle down in my view. I do not, however, see any need for a major rework of the content.

Regarding CATO, this is an organisation which apparently has strong anti-government and anti-public transport views which seems relevant, especially as their expressed views on this subject are broad and general in nature. CATO is not without controversy, with one reference reading: "Climate sceptic 'misled Congress over funding from oil industry' Patrick Michaels, fellow at the Cato Institute, claimed 3% of his funding came from industry, later revealed that figure to be 40%. A leading climate sceptic patronised by the oil billionaire Koch brothers faced a potential investigation today on charges that he misled Congress on the extent of his funding from the oil industry.".[2] As such I would suggest we either discard their views entirely and remove all reference to CATO from the article, or retain their views and also a brief mention of their libertarian views. If you feel any other references would benefit from a political stance being added to do suggest which ones.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not just CATO but the CATO writer, Randal O'Toole, who has been repeatedly identified as having a prejudice against light rail. O'Toole is fighting to get rid of urban planning measures which favor light rail, and the piece he wrote is one such salvo in his political activism work. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And I did some cleanup on his article recently during which I noted that the Thoreau Institute through which he publishes a lot of his work may be close to a one-man-band for which he is identified as the key contact. In addition the organisation's website is bit of a throw-back to the styling on the 1990s which again tends to indicate that it isn't large. PeterEastern (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've logged in. I agree that O'Toole might be biased (based on what others are saying). However, his conclusions mirror those of quite a few others. In that case pointing out how he might be biased in his analysis (possible but not proven based on the funding) is clouding the entire point including the others who have reached the same conclusion.

Again, I think the current article suggests that the conspiracy is a proven event and those who dismiss it are fringe when it would actually appear to be the other way around. Slater has quite a few references to that end which could be included. BTW, I will admit that I do not believe that the conspirators did anything overly nefarious. Yes, GM (and all the other car makers) along with public policy were in fact largely responsible for the decline in the street car much the way the computer was responsible for the decline of the typewriter. Consumers, who are almost always looking at the short term not the long term effects of their actions, saw cars as a great way to not have to ride the dirty, noisy street car that didn't go to their exact destination etc. I think Slater and others who view the decline as a natural outcome are not being given a fair hearing in this article. That is OK if from the word go it's clear that this is a theory and the narrative of the theory should not be taken as proven fact. This is why I'm in favor of a section describing the narrative of the conspiracy and then a second section looking at the facts and the analysis of others. Of course I say I want this but I didn't quite go far enough to volunteer to do this ;)

--Springee (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Springee and thanks for signing up, it makes it much easier to carry on a conversation. I do hear what you say and you may well have a point. Possibly we should review some of the lead wording. What is clear to me is that GM and others had a plan and they didn't want people to understand what that plan was and they set up a number of companies such a way that it is still not possible to understand exactly what they did (Delaware incorporation etc etc). As such it led to all sorts of speculation and exaggeration, which I guess is the opposite of what they intended. It is certainly my view that the 'green' movement has often over-simplified the story as 'goodies and baddies' with GM and co playing the chief baddie. Needless to say there are other voices which over-simplify the story with streetcars being a useless and inefficient dinosaur which died because it's time was up. We need to avoid these over-simplistic versions.

However.. the difference between the typewriter and the streetcar is that no one is planning a return of the typewriter but the streetcar is alive and well in many places outside the USA and there is serious efforts being made to bring them back in a number of places in the USA. As such it is important to understand how it got almost completely wiped-out if you want to bring it back. PeterEastern (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I resent any implication that the typewriter doesn't have it's advocates.... (Youtube:"student brings typewriter to class (CS 1301 @ GT)"). The use of a number of companies may not have been an attempt to hide anything rather than the most practical way to deal with a number of local laws, regulations, tax structures etc. Anyway, I think Slater says it rather well:

• "Clearly, GM certainly did not cause the destruction of the streetcar systems. Streetcars were being replaced all over the world by buses on about the same timeline as happened in the United States. GM simply took advantage of an economic trend that was already well along in the process—one that was going to continue with or without GM's help. Whether or not GM was guilty of illegally, or legally, conspiring with others to corner the market on buses, bus equipment, or fuel is another issue".
• "The issue is not whether GM conspired with others "to monopolize the sale of supplies used by the local transportation companies." They were convicted of that. Nor is the issue whether GM sought to replace streetcars with buses. They obviously did— just as they had earlier sought to replace the horse and buggy (and the buggywhip) with the automobile".
• "The real issue is not even a legal one nor is it really about GM at all. The real core issue in the whole Snell "conspiracy" debate is simply whether or not the buses that replaced the electric streetcars were economically superior to them. In other words, if GM had not existed would we today still have a viable streetcar system or would the general replacement of streetcars by buses have taken place anyway?"
• "One must conclude that the street car became gradually outmoded over a period of 30 years. It first became apparent by 1920 that a superior technology was in the offing. By 1950 it was obvious that the streetcar was obsolete".************

That does not mean that all street car lines are obsolete nor does it mean that economic times haven't changed to the point where it once again can make sense to run a streetcar line. In the end I think the evidence that GM didn't CAUSE the fall of streetcar systems is clear. I mean even if GM wanted to it's not clear they had that much power. Again, this is the sort of information I would like in the article (perhaps more of the supporting evidence so the reader can reach their own final conclusion).

--Springee (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in general agreement on this, except probably the degree to which GM and others were playing very dirty at the time, pushing their business interests hard both legally and at times illegally. Of course, this is not the first new economic sector where this occurred. I suggest that one only needs to look for the legal trouble Microsoft got into in the USA and the EU to see a more modern example of the phenomenon.

What this article needs to do in my view is

1. Explain what actually happened (to the extent that we know given that the parties went to considerable lengths to hide what they were doing)
2. Describe how this has been viewed by the public over various time periods (including all the exaggeration and denials)
3. State clearly that streetcars were replaced around the world, for better of worse, due to wider policies, including planning, taxation and social policies as well as because of poor labour relations and the inherent inflexibility of streetcar services. In my view the key un-costed externalities of motoring included state were funded roads available for use without charge, few or no costs applied to motorists for the many associated externalities (traffic congestion, air pollution, cost of provision of parking etc) etc seem to be important.
4. Briefly touch on the ways that policies have been changing recently to support urban public transport in US cities more effectively over recent decades. Notably with more investment in PT, taxation changes allowing motoring taxes to be used for support public transport and at least consideration of making charges for congestion.

To the extent that the article doesn't do this then I suggest we should adjust it.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that would make for a much better article. Is there a way in Wiki in which an article or rewrite can be started in a queue without going live? It would be nice to be able to work on an update over a period of time then roll it out all at once when ready. Each of the points you mentioned is a subsection of the total rewrite. It would be a lot of work to write it all at once but it would look odd to roll out bits of the rewrite one at a time. I would be happy to help with this sort of total write but I would rather do it "off line" where people could view, review, update etc without messing up the current article. --Springee (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool idea! You can create a new page in your user space, then share the address here. We can display that separate page prominently and those interested can collaborate. groupuscule (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Anybody can copy this article into their userspace and then work on it. Suggestions for places to work might include these possibilities, depending on who wanted to host it: User:PeterEastern/streetcar conspiracy, User:Springee/streetcar conspiracy or User:Groupuscule/streetcar conspiracy. Whoever wants to host this should click on the page with their name. Me, I am interested in offering observations but not hosting. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added an edit page under my name - thanks Binksternet (User:Springee/streetcar conspiracy). Please edit away based on the outline PeterEastern started.--Springee (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to say that I may not be able to give this a lot of attention over the next 2 weeks - I will be online from time to time but will be traveling and pretty busy. I have to say that I am a bit anxious about a rewrite and do hope that we don't loose to much current content in the process, or open up a load of old flame wars. By way of background I spent weeks on this article and also on many associated articles a year or so back taking it from a pretty unsatisfory and unstable article to one that seemed to be reasonably respected. As such I do believe that nearly all the content deserves to stay. For sure it can be improved, and now might well be a good time to do it and I am looking forward to seeing how it develops and will drop comments in from time to time over the coming two weeks. PeterEastern (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I value your past contributions highly. Even so, having someone else work on a sandbox version is a good exercise. We can compare the two versions and see what came across more clearly and what did not. There is no assumed endorsement that a sandbox version will eventually replace the current one. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Very interested to see how it turns out. Can I suggest that contributors to the new version take the time to outline their own POV on the subject on the talk page for the sandbox article - not in order to start an argument, far from it, but to allow people to write from a position of awareness of their own POV and that of others. Needless to say a good article is the result of contributions from people with different POVs who have an ability to see it from other perspectives as well. Would it make sense for any discussion relating to this new version to take place on the user sandbox page created for the purpose? PeterEastern (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that this rewrite appears to have stalled. Possibly the best way to improve this will be by incremental improvement on the main article as is normally done. I will however do some chopping to the lead where it duplicates later historical content to a possibly excessive degree as was proposed in the sandbox version. PeterEastern (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now shortened the lead as proposed. As I have also updated the note at the start of this section to indicate that the rewrite has stalled and to recommend that we treat the proposed rewrite as now closed, but do keep it available for the record. PeterEastern (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cato again again

We are again getting Cato details removed. The Cato text has been discussed many times before on this talk page (see archives for details). Why is it not relevant that they are libertarian and why is it not relevant that they have strong links to the petroleum industry?. I have not reinstated the content, but will do so in due course if there is not a strong case presented here for why it should be removed. Incidentally, I have also had another section removed twice by the same author today, but I have reinstated it with clearer references and requested that it is discussed on the talk page here if the editor is still not happy with the text and references. PeterEastern (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The CATO text is only part of a problem I see. As an employee of a company that creates models for public transportation it's clear you have a bias. In addition your edits remove or add material that is very questionable in integrity of fact. Obviously you have no obligation to so, but if you intend on maintaining Wikipedia's integrity I'd consider not editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatwikiness (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think we need to be aware that we all bring bias, particularly to an article such as this. I see no reason not to contribute openly and having declared by interested in an article about something that happened many decades ago. I have enjoyed learning about it, I think the article is better, and I can see no way that I am likely to gain any commercial (or other) benefit from doing so. PeterEastern (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the the 'details' of the Cato institute. I think picking those particular details to describe Cato, especially the parts about oil industry funding, is an attempt to cast them in a particular light, and thereby discredit them as a source. Im not so opposed to describing them as libertarian, although i think its unnecessary, because it isnt nearly so biasing, but I would say why even describe them at all? They have a wiki page, interested readers can judge for themselves. Bonewah (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the CATO pieces must be couched as biased as they come from Randal O'Toole who is famous (infamous?) for his opposition to the light rail project in Phoenix, the same project that was hailed as highly successful after its completion. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. For one thing, the mere fact that O'Toole was opposed to some particular light rail project has nothing to do with this particular article. For another, painting Cato as some kind of oil industry tool is highly NPOV, especially in an article about an unrelated subject. Bonewah (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The oil industry is related to this topic; they stood to profit if automobiles and buses were adopted vs light rail. O'Toole has been skewered in the New York Times. The reader should be warned of the bias inherent in the viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The oil industry from half a century ago. Attempting to connect the oil industry from back then with Cato now is at best OR. Further, that NYT article (itself often accused of bias) doesnt back up any claims that O'Toole or Cato is unduly biased. Cato has its own article, if you want to argue that it has some overwhelming bias, you should do it there, this is not the place. Also, the article used to back up the claim that Cato receives 40% of its funding from the oil industry doesn't back up that claim. It is speaking about Patrick Michaels specifically, not Cato. Bonewah (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

By way of context, Cato have an article on their website today titled A Desire Named Streetcar: How Federal Subsidies Encourage Wasteful Local Transit Systems, by Randal O'Toole (2006). This seems to put Cato into the frame for inclusion, I don't think we disagree about that, but only about the level supplementary information that is accurate and notable for the article. Firstly, there is the question about whether it is notable to this article that Cato is a libertarian think-tank? Secondly, is it relevant that it receives 'significant funding from oil industry'? Thirdly, it is being disputed that the reference backs up the claim that Cato receives 'significant funding from oil industry'. Personally I think all are relevant and supportable (are Cato's funding links to the Petroleum industry not already well documented, if so, then possible a better reference is required for that one)? PeterEastern (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Cato Institute does throw its weight around trying to gain favorable influence for Chevron as indicated by this friend of the court brief they host on the cato website (its amazing what one can google). Chevron was formerly known as the Standard Oil Company of California, one of the convicted co-conspirators. How much more evidence do you need to show they are in bed with this specific company to this day? Trackinfo (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• More background research.. here is a piece on StreetsblogDC titled 'What Libertarians Talk About When They Talk About Transportation Reform'. There appear to be two camps, one which believes the car is still the 'right' answer, and another which promotes personal choice based on costs being paid by all transport modes (including the car with the cost of oil dependency and road causalities taken into account). The Mobility Choice Coalition is in the later camp and from the tone of the Rangal O-Toole paper on the Cato site they are probably in the first? I note from the Cato Institute website that Cato is ranks as the third most influential advocacy group when it comes to economic policy. The O-Toole paper strong supports an economic policy change that would prevent any tax from motoring to to used on transit which is an economic argument at the heart of the transit debate. At risk of starting a huge edit-war, I wonder if the modern debate should be covered in this article by a short paragraph, and not just the sentence that we are arguing over? PeterEastern (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now updated the Cato text to read "Others have suggested that streetcars were replaced by the private automobile and the bus following the development of reliable internal combustion engines. These include the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank,[32][3] and Cliff Slater.[n 17]". I have places Cato ahead of Slater because there are more influential, added back the 'libertarian' link which seems to be an essential 'hook' for their take on things, but dropped the link to the oil industry. Happy to consider the inclusion of such a reference, but the wording would need care. PeterEastern (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's inaccurate to say Cato's view is exactly that of Rangal O-Toole. It was just an editorial written by Rangal O-Toole and published on Cato's website. Cato has never come out and explicitly said whether or not it supports Mr. O-Toole's view and is representative of their own view. Because of that I believe it's in poor editing behavior to say this is a view held by Cato. I've reverted to the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatwikiness (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A few of points. Firstly... I would find it more helpful if you guys engaged with the discussion on talk to get to an acceptable wording rather than waiting until the article is modified and then reaching for the revert button - I deliberately waited for a couple of days to give you time to respond. Secondly, I totally agree that there may be some question about whether the view of Cato and O-Toole are 100% aligned, which is why I also took to time to research Cato's own publications on the subject and included a reference from the "Cato Handbook on Policy, 7th Edition (2008)" which expressed pretty much the same view - this was included in the text you reverted. Have you taken a look at that reference? If not then I suggest you do, the whole of chapter 24 is worth a read. Thirdly, it would be helpful to the discussion if you signed your comments (using a ~~~~ at the end of the comment on talk, and also provided some brief information about where you are coming from on your user page (no obligation to identify yourself of course). Finally, even if you don't engage on talk, it is generally considered more constructive to propose some different, but more acceptable wording instead of always reverting text other people are presenting. PeterEastern (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How about we all just agree not to be upset if someone either changes something or reverts your change so long as we make an effort to discuss it here? Bonewah (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I did check your reference and did not find anywhere in the Cato Handbook where Cato explicitly states that a reliable internal combustion engine in turn allowed the automobile and bus to replace streetcars. Heck, they didn't even say that both automobiles and buses were causes of descent for the streetcar in the handbook. Those views as mentioned before are only viewed by O-Toole and Cliff Slater. It seems like you are inserting Cato in there just because they don't support public transit and streetcars. I'm having trouble trying to ponder a way Cato belongs in that sentence/section. I'll revert and allow you to respond in the talk page and come up with a better (more accurate) sentence. Greatwikiness (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the last edit has removed all reference to Cato and has also removed the citation that supports the remaining O-Toole claim. Possibly the previous editor may wish to make a further edit to recover the lost reference. What are we going to do about this? Personally I am getting pretty bored with what has been going on as it seems impossible to find a set of words that are acceptable to all editors. Should those of us who believe that there should be a reference to Cato agree on a new para which specifically covers the CATO claim, (separate from the Slater claim) and work on the basis that we may need to go to arbitration or just forget about it and allow the article to no longer reference Cato at all. PeterEastern (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Peter, I find it disappointing when moves like this succeed. I don't have a dog in this fight really, I didn't write the paragraph, I just googled some supporting information. But I hate to see someone successfully badger us to make content in an article that they find disfavorable to their POV (note: I am not saying it is incorrect or inaccurate) disappear. When a POV wins, wikipedia and the world's information that derives from it (meaning everyone else), loses. Trackinfo (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but lets see if we get the necessary reference reinstated for starters and if we get any other feedback here. PeterEastern (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with what I've done, please feel free to rework the section to what you think will be acceptable to both parties, including clear, fair, and transparent sources. I think adding another bullet would be a good idea, removing Randal O'Toole and adding him to a new bullet below and include the sufficient nexus that is fully accurate linking a claim to Cato. I think using this paper published by Cato would be a good start to look for what you are seeking. Do note "Nothing in Policy Analysis should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Cato Institute...". A small rework is probably ideal but if you think it's necessary sending it to arbitration would suffice too, though be non-ideal. Anyways, please do not cease to edit because you think it's "futile" or a "lost battle", that would be disappointing and risk Wikipedia's integrity. Thanks. Greatwikiness (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I find it less than ideal when one set of parties are trying to find the correct wording for a wiki article and another set of parties mainly contribute by hitting the revert button. Could I politely request that the most recent editor at least repairs the article by adding (possibly by adding back?) a suitable reference for Randal. Personally I am done with arguing this particular point for now and will leave it to others to deal with Wikipedia'a integrity as they see fit. PeterEastern (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 75.74.171.108 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Other factors and WP:SYN

The list item for suburbanization and urban sprawl in the 'other factors' section has been removed with the comment' "The cited source makes no mention of the GMSCC, inclusion is WP:SYN in my opinion".[3] I do agree this the citation does not mention the conspiracy, however the section is titled 'Other factors' and is introduced with the text: "Other factors cited in relation to the decline of public transport in industrialized countries generally, and in the USA in particular" which tries to make it clear that the list includes facts related to the decline of transit generally in that period, and not just ones related to places touched by the conspiracy. Is the purpose of the section not to make it clear that it is SYN to claim that the decline of transit in the US is related to the conspiracy, when so make other things were happening at the same time to destabalise transit?! Note that if it is syn to include a reference to urban sprawl in this list, then it is also SYN to the entry on parking which also doesn't mention he conspiracy. PeterEastern (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In a "background" section or similar, the reader is introduced to the context of the topic. I think there is room in such a section for some references that support facts related to the topic. In any case, whatever we decide should be applied to all the references. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the urban sprawl back again with text to make it clear that this is a change not linked directly to the conspiracy, but is linked to the decline of transit in the period in question. I have included the 'free parking' text into the same paragraph, again with a clarification in make it clear that this is not directly linked to the conspiracy. Is that better? PeterEastern (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I get your point that the purpose of that section is to speak to the decline of transit generally, but I dont think that gets around the Synthesis problem. The first line of that section says "A number of analyses have suggested that the eventual replacement of electric-powered street cars with buses was inevitable and indeed occurred within the same timeframe in several other cities where NCL was not involved" If a number of analyses suggest that, we should name and cite those analyses specifically (perhaps with additional information not expressly included in the afore mentioned sources). If we dont, then we are doing our own original research. in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer your issues in turn:

• Re WP:SYN. I don't see any SYN here. This section is included to show that there are other reasons for the decline of public transit in the USA and is used to counter the SYN used by people who say 'there was a conspiracy', and 'streetcars disappeared from our cities' therefore.... GM was responsible for the disappearance of streetcars across the US. We may need to make the text clearer in this regard.
• I agree that the first sentence starts 'A number of analyses have suggested', but there one provides one citation at the end of the sentence. I have added another. I think that covers that issue, if not lets tweek the text.
• I don't see where the WP:OR comes from. The section heading is titled 'other factors' (relating to other reasons citied for the decline of PT in the USA), and then gives details and references for that.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have had a go at reworking the section to cover difference classes of 'other factors' one at a time. Does this help? PeterEastern (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Im not going to raise a stink about it. This article has always walked a line between the General Motors streetcar conspiracy and a history of streetcars generally, and i suppose it would be challenging to write a good article if you didnt, so im satisfied with the changes. (unsigned edit attributed to Bonewah)

Peter. in this edit you seemed to suggest there needed to be a citation for a summation ". . . the areas affected by GM's interference include 7 of the currently largest 9 metropolitan areas in the country." Maybe it is the problem created with WP:SYN, how do we look at two sets of facts and combine them to make a conclusion that is obvious? The article documents that affected communities include: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland. The List of Combined Statistical Areas shows those places are in the number 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 positions on that list. Why not change the statement to the top 5? That is much more impressive without the qualifier. Why put an awkward statement in here? And why the need for an external citation? Trackinfo (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create this sentence, which was added by someone else early in 2012. I simply put a 'citation needed' on it. For sure, lets change it to something that can be proven or simply remove it. Personally I don't believe that it adds anything of any great value. PeterEastern (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll change the text to Top 5. I do think that is significant, though maybe not played up perfectly. That this historical issue still affects the major cities to this day, perhaps cities that are greater players now, rather than then. Trackinfo (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine. By my recogning the conspiracy impacted in some way in all the top 5 US metropolitan areas. I have tweeked the text to that effect. I have also done some more reorganising of the factors into themes. PeterEastern (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Challenge to text mentioning David Lipson's thesis

The section which reads "The role of GM and buses in the decline of mass transit was further explored in the doctoral thesis of David Lipson in 1987" was deleted with the statement "the portion about David Lipson writing a doctoral dissertation is incorrect. David Lipson was an Economics major at Harvard, writing his undergrad thesis on the subject. He does not have a PhD and currently works in the real estate industry"[4] and then reinstated with the comment "Regardless of his current employment, the fact that he challenged the accusations of Snell are worth covering"[5].

I have not read this thesis, can't access it if wanted to and have no information about who David Lipson is or what he does now. A couple of questions:

• It is a doctoral thesis or an undergraduate thesis - how can we check?
• Is a undergraduate (or doctoral) thesis on the subject notable in itself, or would it only be notable if it revealed anything new or generated public discussion? I suggest a thesis on its own is not.
• Is the author's name relevant, or would it only be relevant if the author was notable to the subject (which apparently his is not)? I suggest the author's name should not be included in the name text of the article.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what David Lipson's educational status is, but the deletion seems to be another effort to discredit anybody who challenges the conspiracy theory. User:DanTD (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for watching the article - a very important thing to do. However the article will be a lot stronger if the text is strong and in every case supported by good citations, which is why I have been sorting references today for all the uncited claims in the 'other factors' section which should discourage people from removing text from that section again! Personally... I think we can remove all reference to Lipson's thesis, I didn't mention it above but inclusion of the thesis would be easy if we could find even one WP:Secondary citing it, without that it seems a bit irrelevant. Would you be OK with that? I will look to sort citations out for the three the remaining 'citations needed' notes in the article. PeterEastern (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no benefit from including Lipson if there is no discussion of the content of Lipson's thesis. At the time of removal, the article only said, "The role of GM and buses in the decline of mass transit was further explored in the doctoral thesis of David Lipson in 1987." Well so what? We are not told whether Lipson found GM to be guilty or not. I say take it out for that reason alone. It does not matter whether the Harvard thesis was doctoral or lesser; it does not matter what Lipson is doing now. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have taken the text out now. If a strong argument for reinstatement emerges then we can add it back. PeterEastern (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The original edit to delete Lipson's thesis came from me. It is unfortunate that DanTD believes it is acceptable to include writings that are not peer-reviewed or even published. I am positive DanTD has not even read the thesis because it is not a dissertation, it is the work of an undergraduate. The thesis does not contribute to the existing body of knowledge we have at hand concerning the conspiracy. All Harvard student dissertations and thesis are stored in the library system, the direct link to Lipson's thesis is here: http://hollis.harvard.edu/?itemid=%7Clibrary/m/aleph%7C001606647 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.96.123 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this truly about something peer reviewed? Or is this about giving credence to those who are convinced that the conspiracy is legitimate? If Lipson's article has nothing credible in either direction, I'm okay with the removal. User:DanTD (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I supported the removal because I felt that the article was already pretty long, already did a great job of presenting the facts in a comprehensive and balanced way and that the disputed text seemed to added little other than clutter. I am glad you are happy with the outcome. PeterEastern (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Six sections, all started by one contributor and all largely unresolved

The following six sections have been amalgamated for clarity. All start with broad claims by the same contributor and none were resolved. The author has now been almost completely silent on WP for a month PeterEastern (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Grossly inaccurate sources can be removed, right?

So, why does this still use Snell, on what are obvious falsehoods? Anmccaff (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Snell is discussed throughout the article, as he should be. What specific changes are you looking for? Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If we are discussing this as myth, certainly Snell needs to be mentioned, but Snell's cavalier approach to actual facts makes his initials extremely appropriate. The PE was never owned by an NCL affiliate, for instance, and the "conspiracy" - the most open one in world history- was supposedly unveiled in 1949...so why do we have the article starting with a picture of interurban cars -note they are not streetcars- being scrapped by a local government 11 years later? (Snell, that's why.) We have a claim that GM set up a special hit-squad on trolleys, backed by the words it was paraphrased from...by Snell. We have Snell's claim about electric rail transit's share of the market in 1920, backed by a footnote that...hmmm... does exactly the same thing. Theat isn't even a tertiary source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

• Err.. does the current text not make the concerns raised regarding Snell's testimony abundantly clear? To quote: 'The accuracy of significant elements of Snell's 1974 testimony was challenged by Cliff Slater in a published article in Transportation Quarterly in 1997' and 'Guy Span, a noted writer on the subject has suggested that Snell and others fell into simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusion'. PeterEastern (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that Snell's scholarship is so bad, so nonexistent, that pairing it with, say, Span, is an insult to Mr. Span. And, real as GS's knowledge is, it's telling that not one real expert -say, Hilton- is mentioned regarding the conspiracy myth, probably because it's hard to transcribe laughter. There is no actual story here, except that of a folktale, and the article should reflect that an awful lot more than it does.

That is, it should either be about the actual actions of NCL et al, which were nothing like a conspiracy they were quite open about looking for candidates for "bustitution," but famously made the last major US buy of PCC cars for LA's streetcar system - on a line that the previous owner had already planned to replace with buses. Some trolley-killer, that.

It could also be about how the folktale evolved; there's a lot to that, and it's interesting that a story in which government was a major villian, a corporate demon is always found instead - the traction companies in the early versions, GM in the new.

It could also be a serious article about how US streetcars became obsolete, and to what extent that was fixable.

But right now, it falls between all three stools, and is widely quoted (do a quick google search if you doubt it) by the most raving conspiraloons as proof of conspiratorial evil.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• The article as it stands now does a fairly good job of telling the reader about Snell's misrepresentations. I can't see any way to tell the reader about this whole issue without mentioning Snell. Regarding Professor George Hilton of UCLA and the Smithsonian, of course the article will benefit from his scholarship. The same goes for US Transit Administration analyst Brian Cudahy, and L.A. historian Scott Bottles, who is found down in "Further reading" but not represented in the article. Hilton's essay "What Did We Give Up With the Big Red Cars?" is easily accessible. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you would like to try and work the changes that you outlined into the article, id be happy to give it a fair reading and comment here. Bonewah (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I might be some time with it, though. The biggest single change, that would eliminate all but the stupidest uses of the article, would be renaming it to include the word "Myth" oe "Folktale," or "Urban Legend," or so forth. If you look at links both on and off wiki, the majority of cites seem to think that this article proves "GM WUZ EEvUl!!!" As for Snell, obviously he has to be mentioned in a discussion of the myth, but in a discussion of the actual events he is so completely unreliable that reliance on him is less than useless...and that includes tertiary and qua(r)tenary sources that use him. 76.28.172.126 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Err... we appear to be moving from a position where we are discussing whether Snell is being presented in this article appropriately to one where the whole saga is be presented as a 'myth' with GM innocent of any mischief. PeterEastern (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the only actual "mischief" they seem to have done was strong-arming subsidiaries to buy their products. NCL was pretty free not to do "bustitution;" they made the last major US new buy of PCCs, and moved trackless trolleys between stystems rather than blindly scrap them.. The rest is mostly smoke, mirrors, and inuendo, and much ist is demonstrably factually false. (Red Cars, New Haven, &cet.) Anmccaff (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The basis of the 1940s conviction was that GM and the others 'controlled' these subsiduaries, thereby being responsible for their actions. These subsidiaries seem to have been set up specifically to do bustitution. Can I ask you to provide good references for the claims you make above. For example, where are your good secondary references that 'the rest is mostly smoke, mirrors and inuendo'. Can you please point out any element in the current article that is 'demonstrably factually false' based on reliable references. PeterEastern (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, but note that both the investigation and the trial found that GM et al controlled the choice of buses used on a small portion of NCLs holdings, and an IC monopoly on just that part, a tiny portion of public transit at the time; that Fitgerald approached them, rather than the opposite; and that Fitzgerald was seeking out systems for which motorization was an economic no-brainer, not cleverly sabotaging vibrant systems. That's already in the sources cited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

• Can I draw your attention to this quote that we have included in the lead and which I think presents the facts fairly: 'GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction'. Do you think that is fair? PeterEastern (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "fair" has to do with, but, pace Brother Span, it ain't true. GM seldom went into a full assault on -any- broad category. Yes, Camarros and Goats fought Mustangs, , Geeps battled with RS3, but I doubt anything scared GM more than knocking off enough competitors to get trust-busted. The bus business along the old urban core was only a tiny part of GM's bus market, which was only a small part of GM's whole market. So, I suspect GS is exagerating a tad. Compared to, say, FDR, Frank Lloyd Wright, Robert Moses....well, you are probably aware how long a list could be made...GM was a piker. Anmccaff (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I am following any of your argument here. PeterEastern (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

GM was paranoid about anti-trust; going full-bore on any competitor was frowned on, although dominating any particular market niche was a goal. GM products competed with Ford products, but taking Ford down completely would have led GM down the path that Standard Oil took. The streetcars and interbans, after '29, were a small part of the transit market outside of pre-war urban cores. Autos and buses were indetified with freedom, modernity, and even democracy by a goodly slice of the population, even by people who ought to have known better. Stuff like that.Anmccaff (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Re your comment 'is widely quoted (do a quick google search if you doubt it) by the most raving conspiraloons as proof of conspiratorial evil'. I put a lot of effort into this article providing very robust references for the single purpose of pulling the rug from both those who say 'It was all GM's fault' and from those who say 'GM woz innocent'. I think it does a reasonable job at that, especially because it gets criticised by people on both sides of the argument! PeterEastern (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There -aren't- two sides to much of the argument. If someone says "GM bought and killed the Red Cars," (usually with about 62 exclamation points interspersed somehow...) they are simply factually wrong, and their position deserves no mention, except as myth, and that's what most of this, at least regarding Snell and his acolytes, is. Now Quinby's another story, but, again, not the simple cautionary "EvEryBODiES being MEAN to ME!!!!" of the Roger Rabbit Myth. Anmccaff (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, not sure what point you are making. We have a comprehensively referenced article that has been stable for some long time now. What exactly if the basis for your position? Can you focus on specific issues with the article and provide convincing references to support your position. PeterEastern (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have some real disagreement about the "comprehensively researched;" over-footnoted, perhaps, but any piece that makes Quinby a simple sailor-man returning to expose a dread conspiracy is so contra-factual that it is breathtaking. Quinby and the Motormen's had been dogging motorization, and GM in particular, for at least 8 years then; there was absolutely nothing in his screed that wasn't fairly wide public knowledge to anyone interested. I could go on with this for a while; a good many of the underlying "facts" in the conspiracy case aren't factual.Anmccaff (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(PS: is splitting your response, as I did above, kosher here? It saves considerable on time and space, I think. Anmccaff (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC) )

• The split seems fine to me. My criticism, if there is one, is that you are not providing any strong evidence for your position which is too vague to act on. Please focus on providing evidence in the form of good references to support specific changes to the article. PeterEastern (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the ball is in other courts on that; where are there -any- references to some aspects of the Conspiracy Myth that don't go directly back to Snell or Quinby, and stop there? That is, where is the proof, besides, "Snell said it, I believe, that settles it? You can footnote that til our porcine friends take wing over the frozen reaches of Hades, but it's still lacking factual underpinning. Snell's only real cites went back to Hilton, who proceeded to blast him over their misuse.Anmccaff (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• This disagreement, such as it is, might be much easier resolved if you could perhaps lay out some specific changes you would like to see. I get what your saying, but im not sure how it will translate to the article itself. Bonewah (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm leaning toward something like: "The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) is an Urban Legend loosely connected to allegations against by General Motors (GM) and other companies involved with National City Lines and affiliates and subsidiaries, claiming that these companies, though deliberate malfeasance destroyed a vibrant, economically sound electric traction system throughout the US. It is not taken seriously by any serious student of North American transit..." with separate entries for NCL and the the decline of electric traction, worked on in concert. There are three items fuddled together here: the stae of electric traction at certain times; NCL and motorization; and an UL.Anmccaff (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Just to make that clear, I'm saying this needs to be three separate articles, and we only have two of them existing now. The UL portion has spread outside of GM, of course, to a general 'Protocols of the Elders of Gasolion' approach, with Ford joining or replacing GM or Mack, and with cities clearly completely uninvolved. The folkloric element is very, very strong here. Based on past experience, I'm unwilling to take the current silence as stunned, mute acquiescence; any thoughts, or am I genuinely not conveying my meaning here? 14:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

Following a pause in the discussion lasting a number of days PeterEastern tagged this section with the comment This discussion appears to have stalled following requests for specific examples to support the claims of inaccuracy being made. Following the response below the comment was moved to this position. PeterEastern (talk)

My apologies; I missed this earlier. My position is that Snell's veracity is sufficiently impeached within the existing article, it's references, and the wiki articles it links to to be useless without some other backing. Snell, that is to say, is not an authority -except of the folktale he helped strengthen - and the burden or proof is on establishing that any of his ideas are true, not vice-versa. The facts established elsewise are that GM invested in companies using buses, including one family of companies intent replacing obsolete, uneconomical streetcar systemsm-at least as they saw it, and quite likely in fact, and did so in a way that violated the anti-trust act. Anything beyond that remains to be proved, and that's a judgement that can be made with the evidence at hand. What else would you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

With respect, I think you need to provide us with some strong clear references to support your statement that this is an urban legend, myth or fable (as you describe it). Without such references most of what you suggest appears to be to be going against WP:NPOV, Sorry. Do notice however that I have added Hilton's paper to the 'further reading' section. Thanks for that useful tip. PeterEastern (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Hilton's paper" (he had more than one, you know...) is about a company almost completely uninvolved with the GM story. What do you see its connection as, aside from very general background?Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I am finding you a very difficult person to engage with and you do seem to be coming back pretty abrasively with just about everyone in relation to this article. Possibly it might be a good idea to work with other people on other articles for a while and come back with fresh eyes in a bit? To answer your specific question, the Hilton paper I added was the Hilton paper that I found after you said "it's telling that not one real expert -say, Hilton- is mentioned regarding the conspiracy myth, probably because it's hard to transcribe laughter". I didn't understand the hard to transcribe laughter bit, but the paper I found mentioned Snell, General Motors and National City Lines in the 2nd para so added it. Is this not the paper you were referring to or is this the wrong Hilton? Do you object to it being included in 'Further Reading' or are there others we should add? PeterEastern (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Electric railroads

e trackinfo's edit, summarized as: 'Defining the discussion is not dubious. Both sample and existing articles essentially agree on what the subject of the article is.':

If we are discussing "allegations" which include false assertions, myths, and so on, sure. But this discusses "a a program by General Motors (GM) and other companies who purchased and then dismantled streetcar and electric train systems" which rather strongly implies that there was an actual "program," an agenda beyond selling buses. That's begging the question.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the text we are discussing (complete with disputed addition of a 'dubious' tag) is as follows:

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) refers to allegations and convictions in relation to a program by General Motors (GM) and other companies who purchased and then dismantled streetcar and electric train systems in many cities in the United States.

What is dubious about this? I support the removal of the tag.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is there a single example of an electric train system given in the article that isn't resoundingly debunked? (And where is any evidence beyond assertion of a formal program to destroy transit -as opposed to a rather obvious one to sell buses? Showing that 22 small systems were "bustituted" and 4 medium-sized systems were partly converted doesn't make much of a case, if you accept Snell's mythology of a vibrant electric transit system as true.)Anmccaff (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The lede is describing the article which is a discussion of the subject. You are arguing vehemently about the substance of the allegation, but the article is still about the allegation. That is not dubious. Trackinfo (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Allegation?" Singular? There are whole families of allegations, some, of course, based on this "stable, well researched" article. Icke's lot seen to go for it...GM as Reptilians. Do you believ there is some single, canonical variant of the "allegations?" And do you believe there is a single, canonical version of the alleged "program?"Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Quinby's professional status.

"Edwin J. Quinby

"That same year, Edwin Jenyss Quinby, who described himself as being a serving naval commander,[7]"

Makes the fellow sound a bit dubious...perhaps you might want to use another title he went by, "Professor," although you shouldn't waste too much time determining what institution bestowed it on him.

"...published a 24-page expose on the owners of NCL. It was addressed to "The Mayors; The City Manager; The City Transit Engineer; The members of The Committee on Mass-Transportation and The Tax-Payers and The Riding Citizens of Your Community" and began, "This is an urgent warning to each and every one of you that there is a careful, deliberately planned campaign to swindle you out of your most important and valuable public utilities–your Electric Railway System".[n 7]"

Quinby had published similar blasts in Railroad, Metropolitan, and Headlights as much as two years before, and more measured ones back to '39 or so. This wasn't news, except to the likes of Snell.

" Quinby had previously worked for the North Jersey Rapid Transit, which operated in New York..."

Suffern, New York, that is. A small corner of the state that, back then, a good many citified New Yorkers preferred to think of as an honorary part of New Jersey. Note that his road was dead and buried in '28, like most rural trolleys. And that trolley only got into a small corner of New York; it operated, really, in North Jersey, as the name suggests.

"... and had established the Electric Railroaders' Association in 1934, which lobbied on behalf of rail users and services.[8]"

The parallel with other one-man-show lobbying efforts hasn't struck you? Quinby was the O'Toole of his day.

"He was later to write a history of North Jersey Rapid Transit.[9] By 1947, NCL owned or controlled 46 systems in 45 cities in 16 states.[n 8]"

Passing over the rather strange segue, don't sell E. Jay so short: he wrote about damn near everything, if it was a bit technically oriented. Radios. (He's the smiling face shown presenting Amelia Earhart with the set she got lost with.) Electric, gas, diesel, stirling and steam motors. Battery cars. Organs. Steamboats. Steamships. Being a radioman on a steamship. Being an organist on a steamboat. (Hence, the "Professor," IMS.). A man of parts, he was, but a man with an agenda.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is disputing that he had an agenda. My changing wording relating to his naval rank has been an attempt to respond to your various comments as to his rank at the time of writing. Span says he was a former Lieutenant Commander, he himself said he was a serving commander and a Miami newspaper apparently said he was something else. Can we leave it as it is?

I have no idea what else you are trying to say so can't respond. I again note your sweeping unverifiable generalisations such as the Quinby was the O'Toole of his day. Please try to tone this stuff down and focus on verifiable statements and we might make more progress. Thank you removing the reference to New York from the lead and to '100 systems', both statement not being supported by the citations.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we can't verify his naval rank and it doesn't really affect anything here, I suggest we just drop his rank from the article and leave it at that.  Stepho  talk  11:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

But that's the folkloric element: tired hero returning from a foreign fight, only to face rot at home. Why, aside from the cut-and-paste mentality, do you think the military connection is emphasized in so many tellings of the story?Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Anmccaff

I am concerned that user:Anmccaff (correct link - no user details at as yet hence a red link) continues to add 'dubious' tags to the article and make other changes after leaving string of antagonistic dangling discussions on the talk page. I have already tried to discuss his approach to the community with him (or her) on his talk page at the end of which we had to agree to disagree. Personally I am getting to the point where I will revert any changes that Anmccaff makes unless the appropriateness of the change is very clearly supported by appropriate references. Is this an over-reaction on my part, or would others support this? PeterEastern (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I've been laying back, trying to follow the same discussion and have been eagerly awaiting something concrete. There are a lot of almost non-sequiter conclusions that are all pointed at a POV to essentially erase the article, based on impeaching Quinby and thus his report as a derivative. I would totally oppose such action. You saw the argument above, Anmccaff was attempting to even question the subject of the article as dubious. That was too far and essentially, all of it looks like its going way too far. So Peter, you have my support. I would suggest if Anmccaff wants to see this article look so drastically different, then have him build it himself in a sandbox and we can discuss from there without damaging the public view of this otherwise stable article. Trackinfo (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that some time back Anmccaff created this text in his sandbox where he appears to be assembling his thoughts on the subject. It starts as follow:

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) is an Urban Legend loosely connected to allegations against by General Motors (GM) and other companies involved with National City Lines and affiliates and subsidiaries, claiming that these companies, though deliberate malfeasance destroyed a vibrant, economically sound electrion traction system throughout the US. It is not taken seriously by any serious student of North American transit.

My question is simply about when/if/how we determine that he edits can be reverted without discussion. Can we make that decision or should we put raise the issue on one of the dispute boards? Needless to say, it would be great if he started editing and engaging constructively, but that doesn't seem to be happening. His efforts are also currently 100% focused on this article.

--PeterEastern (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Purchases not involving conversions.

"(Sorry, but GM and others involvement in busification of these systems is a fact, including San Diego. I would love to see your evidence to the contrary on the talk page.) (undo | thank)"

Fourteen of the NCL or subsidiary smaller systems during the period of GM et al.'s involvement -Davenport, Galesburg, Inglewood, Jackson, Joliet, Lansing, Long Beach, Oshkosh, Ottumwa, Peoria, Pontiac, Quincy (IL), Spokane, Tampa, and Tulsa involved no substitution; they were purchases of existing bus systems or new motorbus systems. In El Paso, NCL ran streetcars until they broke, and made one of the last buys in.., dunno,'52? Of the 6 larger systems NCL had a strong or controlling interest in, one, Jacksonville, was bus-only before purchase, two -Baltimore and Philadelphia- saw a slow cutback of streetcar use not unlike competing systems, one, Key (Oakland) saw a rapid replacement of streetcars, and a diversion of trackless trolleys, but investment in the Bay-crossing interurban line, and two, Saint Louis and Los Angeles, saw new investment in PCC cars, expanded use of trackless trolleys in LA. Hardly the unmixed record of bustitution you claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you say above appears to have nothing to do with you removal of the reference to San Diego from the lead.

That's your inference, not my implication. The whole sentence is dubious. Here's the section you edited: "Between 1936 and 1950, National City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, and the Federal Engineering Corporation—purchased electric surface-traction systems in 45 cities including St. Louis, Baltimore, Newark, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Diego and converted them into bus operations " Do you see anything centering particularly on San Diego there? NCL bought turn-around systems, bus or trolley, or mixed. Implying that they bought nothing but trolleys, and did nothing but destroy them, is inaccurate.

The involvement of GM and the other in the decline of the San Diego Electric Railway after National City Lines took a 64% stake in Key Systems in 1946 is clear is it not? PeterEastern (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The decline of the Spreckel's line before the WTC takeover is equally clear. Both, however, are non particularly relevant to what I wrote.Anmccaff (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Re "(reverting recent changes, added without suitable citations) (undo | thank)", you removed: "an emerging technology bubble, inflation combined with fixed prices, theGood_Roads_Movement, competition with other electric transit... ...regulations prohibiting full use of plant, inflexibility of equipment" which of these do you not see in the existing listed sources? Anmccaff (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As I explained above in the section titled 'Anmccaff' above, "Personally I am getting to the point where I will revert any changes that Anmccaff makes unless the appropriateness of the change is very clearly supported by appropriate references". Please concentrate on building a bit more engagement with the people here and stop bashing away at the text and the community. Do please reflect how you have engaged to date with the article and the people and for starters. Do please indent your responses better and ensure that you sign your comments. Do please also create a basic user page as I have already suggested on your talk page. It really won't end well if you carry on like this. . PeterEastern (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• In response to: "As I explained above in the section titled 'Anmccaff' above, "Personally I am getting to the point where I will revert any changes that Anmccaff makes unless the appropriateness of the change is very clearly supported by appropriate references"" Anmccaff responded:

I would respectfully suggest that you do the same with the rest of the article, especially any section which supports questions of fact by quoting Bradford Snell. Do you remember who it was who said: "Competent scholars are outraged at the abuses in Snell’s report and are happy to expose its nature. Once arguing against Snell, they find themselves firmly in the non-conspiracy camp. Pro-conspiracy theorists rely on Snell and look like idiots. Thus it appears as if Snell’s work is more effective at polarizing opinions (generating heat) than it is in adding any light. If someone wants a real conspiracy theory, how about Bradford Snell in the pay of GM to make up preposterous stories so a real conspiracy would be overlooked?" The core of your article is supported by notoriously sloppy scholarship; as Sy Adler wrote, everything Snell wrote about transit in LA is wrong.Anmccaff (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• In response to "Please concentrate on building a bit more engagement with the people here and stop bashing away at the text and the community" Anmccaff responded:

You aren't getting something rather important; the text is flawed at its heart, and -needs- bashing - at least as I see it. It is based on half-truths, falsehoods, exaggerations, anachronism, and wishful thinking, since it is based on a work by Bradford Snell.Anmccaff (talk)

• In response to "Do please reflect how you have engaged to date with the article and the people and for starters" Anmccaff responded:

Again, I suggest you do the same, and consider whether there isn't an appearance of ideological litmus tests in what materials are retained.Anmccaff (talk)

• In response "Do please indent your responses better and ensure that you sign your comments" Anmccaff responded:

Now, here, I must agree heartily; some of its a real dog's breakfast. I dunno how to handle the multiple signature requirements, and my proofreading has been execrable.Anmccaff (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have still not created a user page and totally confused the threading with your most recent response. Also that you feel that the article is 'based on half-truths, falsehoods, exaggerations, anachronism, and wishful thinking' and is 'text is flawed at its heart'. In short, you appear to be convinced that you are right and that the rest of the editors, including myself, are wrong. Could I draw your attention again to WP:NPOV and also to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, because I think we will have to use one of the approaches outlined at the end of the disruptive editing article if you continue to act as you are. PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article, which is on an important topic, unfortunately appears to have been essentially vandalized by Cato Institute supporters. It reads more like a polemic than an informative article - using biased language, dubious original research, and selective source citation. Fyi, the article has been completely rewritten since that time, and is now in pretty good shape as far as I am concerned and is also very stable ! PeterEastern (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Apparently at some point since November, it's been mostly reverted. Before you can finish the introductory section and figure out what the article is about, it starts raving about how nothing you've heard is true. I'm putting a POV tag back on it (it seems to have come and gone several times already). SetarconeX (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)