Talk:Hongqi (marque)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hongqi (marque) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

English Name

Should be Red Flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.77.22 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we start calling Volkswagen 'Peoplescar'? No... don't think so. Bmuni (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$1.2 million!

User:Fleetham, you may find $1.2M implausible, but not only is it referenced but the rejected article is then referenced again by yourself. If the site is not trustworthy, then all ChinaAutoWeb cites must clearly be removed period. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besturn

I'm removing the Besturn section from the article, as it looks like it is certainly not a sub-brand of Hong Qi: "FAW are having problems with the Besturn brand, they don’t know if to call it a FAW, a Besturn or a Hong Qi, they’ve tried all in the past 18 months but now it seems that they are sticking with the FAW logo for the new Beturn B70, B90 and SUV." - China Car Times article Fleetham (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the editor who had concerns about the removal of the Besturn content: I don't understand what you meant in your edit summary, but please discuss it here instead of reverting. Thanks, Fleetham (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section is referenced and there is no need to reomve it. Even if Besturn ends up stillborn it is still of relevance and shouldn't just be deleted. Instead of deleting the content, change it to reflect the current situation - for instance using the reference cited above. For the one-thousandth time: do not just simply delete referenced content. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't simply delete referenced content. I posted on the talk page about it too. I'd appreciate fewer hyperbole-laden negative comments from you in the future. Anyway, the section needs a re-write as this article shows that the current source has it somewhat wrong: Hongqi are now sold via Besturn dealerships. Fleetham (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting on the Talk header does not justify deletion of content. If facts have changed since text was written, then simply update the text accordingly instead of just deleting things. And if someone reverses your deletion, then wait until things are resolved on the Talk header before you go back and redelete it again. Please try to edit according to accepted practice. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: where's the hyperbole? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I've gotten a lot of negative feedback from you in the past. Please be more polite when providing negative feedback in the future. I'm easily offended by you due to prior encounters. Fleetham (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negative feedback may be a result of bad edits, disregarding the standards which we follow. Again: what hyperbole? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more considerate, that's all I'm asking. Fleetham (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely considerate. All I ask is the same - consideration in the form of avoiding wholesale deletions, particularly of referenced content. Be bold, yes, but when someone protests at your bold moves you should allow for conversation instead of re-reverting. See WP:BRD for more. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I annoyed you. If you're only uncivil because you perceive me to be likewise, I'll make extra efforts to disabuse you of that perception. Fleetham (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing cited content

I've changed content citing this link to better conform to the source, but I think it's irrelevant and should be deleted. If anyone has an objection, could they please enlighten me as to what is meant by "Initially the Ben Tung brand was known as Besturn in English, but it later fell under the Hong Qi (Red Flag) naming series at this years [sic] Beijing Auto Show." Fleetham (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means exactly what it says. FAW planned a Ben Tung (westernized as Besturn) brand as a standalone but later incorporated it into slow-selling Hongqi and showed it as such at the 2010 Beijing Auto Show. The other reference which you deleted clearly states that Besturn was then once again made a standalone (meaning that Hongqi is now again on its own). I don't see the mystery. This is clearly relevant, as evidence of FAW's confusion and inability to fully decide what to do with its myriad brands, and as evidence that Hongqi as a brand is also at some risk. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem more confident about what's going on than I am. But I don't think we have enough info. to support your assertions (which do seem likely).

All the 1st reference said was "[Besturn] later fell under the Hong Qi (Red Flag) naming series".
All the 2nd reference said was Besturn's badge is now a standard FAW "winged 1". (Besturn's original badge was a stylized "1" (see this pic).)

What you're saying happened, and correct me if I am wrong, is Besturn was a separate brand, then it became a Hong Qi brand, and now it's a separate brand again? If that's what you think, I don't know if these are the best citations to use. They citations say so little, but you say so much. Please be reasonable and reconsider what valid conclusions can be drawn from such paltry data :D Fleetham (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you're probably right, but the sources won't allow you to say what you want. Can we agree better sources are in order? Fleetham (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source lends more credence to your claim. Fleetham (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat difficult to see, but this FAW product page appears to show a Hong Qi with the same "stylized 1" badge as this Besturn. Fleetham (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a clear pic of a Hong Qi with the same badging as the Besturn. Fleetham (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any real room for doubt. All of the articles agree, including the ones you found above. I will not agree to removing content which is factually correct unless you can present better sources which prove the "disputed" material wrong. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the sources backing the material currently on the page are ambiguous and open to interpretation. I will do my best to find better sources, but please acknowledge the disparity between the material in this article and it's supporting citation.

The assertion "Besturn was itself under consideration for becoming a Hongqi sub-brand in 2010, and was displayed as such at that year's Beijing Auto Show" is supported by a source that reads "It’s not entirely clear if FAW are planning to continue with the Besturn brand or not, but it seems that they are now planning to continue with the brand expansion and worry about branding later. Initially the Ben Tung brand was known as Besturn in English, but it later fell under the Hong Qi (Red Flag) naming series at this years Beijing Auto Show."

The source is ambiguous, but you're very clear. And that's the problem: "falling under a naming series" does not necessarily mean "becoming a sub-brand". I don't think it's even the most likely explanation.

I fail to see the ambiguity. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for sources. And I don't think you're wrong: if good sources are to be found there's a good chance they will bear out your view. Determining the veracity of that view, however, is difficult when I look to the citations. It could be true, yes, but it's an interpretation of unclear, ambiguous source material. It may be that good citations cannot be found. If this is the case, I think making changes to the article is necessary. Fleetham (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source, for example, tells a different story than you do. It seems sales of Hong Qi were "flagging" (pun intended), and in order to obtain more sales outlets for its cars, Hong Qi models were sold at Besturn dealerships. Far from Besturn becoming a "sub-brand" of Hong Qi, it appears from this source that Hong Qi became a brand sold at Besturn showrooms. Fleetham (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It tells a different story because it is not on the same topic. This 2008 event is already covered: "by 2008 sales were flagging and these were folded into the dealership network of Besturn, a newly developed First Automobile Works brand." The turning of Besturn into a Hongqi sub-brand was considered in 2010, as is indicated by the other references. The third reference (from yesterday) also mentions that Besturn nearly became a Hongqi brand. The picture of a Besturn with a Hongqi logo that you found offers further evidence. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the dates. But it's one thing to say "FAW considered turning Besturn into a Hongqi sub-brand" and another to say "people speculated that this might happen". There were a lot of "sub-brands" in the works in 2010: Everus (Guangzhou Auto-Honda sub-brand), BaoJun (SAIC-GM sub-brand), Fengshen (a Dongfeng own-brand), Venucia (Dongfeng-Nissan sub-brand). So it's reasonable to think people might have speculated that FAW would enter the sub-brand fray. But even such speculation may not have occurred. Nowhere, including the cited source for that claim in the article, are the words Besturn and sub-brand found together. The closest we get is a source that says Besturn "fell under the Hongqi naming series" at a 2010 autoshow. I don't really know what that means. FAW clearly sees them as separate, mentioning on its website, "'Besturn' and 'Hongqi' both belong to FAW". Fleetham (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a FAW marketing website for Besturn at the 2010 Beijing autoshow, the autoshow mentioned in the source cited for the claim "Besturn might have become a Hongqi sub-brand". Besturn models do sport the Hongqi "stylized 1" badge on the website; that's probably what was meant when the source says Besturn "fell under the Hongqi naming series". But I think Besturn has since the beginning shared badging with Hongqi--although it was a sister brand not a sub-brand. You write in the article, "Besturn reverted to the FAW badge", but I don't think that's true. Fleetham (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here's a Besturn in 2008 with the Hongqi badging (3rd pic.). If using the same badge as some Hongqi models meant Besturn became a sub-brand of Hongqi, it would have done so in 2008--not 2010. Fleetham (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you can see from this that it's not unusual for different FAW brands to share badging. The basic FAW "winged 1" logo now appears on both Besturn and FAW Jilin models (and on Xiali as well, I might add). Fleetham (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have any objections, I will replace the parts of the "Besturn" section about it becoming a sub-brand and it reverting to use of the generic "winged 1" FAW badge. In their place I will put the fact that Besturn at one time shared badging with some Hongqi models, and so it might not be readily apparent that these cars are not, in fact, Hongqi. I hope you're agreeable. I see no evidence that supports either the claim that Besturn was a sub-brand candidate in 2010 or the assertion that it initially had badging different from Hongqi. Fleetham (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a FAW press release from 2006; click on the pic and you'll see Besturn has borne the same logo as Hongqi from the very beginning. So the whole bit about Besturn "reverting" to use of the normal FAW badge isn't true: 2011 Besturns will be the first to bear the normal badging. Fleetham (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From this article: "FAW are having problems with the Besturn brand, they don’t know if to call it a FAW, a Besturn or a Hong Qi, they’ve tried all in the past 18 months but now it seems that they are sticking with the FAW logo for the new Beturn B70, B90 and SUV." "Falling under the hongqi naming series" to me would make it a subbrand, but I guess it could be quoted verbatim if you prefer. But definitely mention the mixing of badging. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acquiescing! Fleetham (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audi 100/200

Hongqi has built a licensed copy of the C3 Audi 100/200 since 1995, itself built under license by FAW originally. Since the 200 is simply a rebadged version of the 100, it is senseless to state that this is somehow a different car. But to make you happy: link. I don't see a need to include the link in the article, since it is so obviously a C3 Audi 100 underneath. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember just assume that it wasn't an Audi 100 from looking at a picture once. Should I cite the above in the page? Fleetham (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above: "I don't see a need to include the link in the article, since it is so obviously a C3 Audi 100 underneath." ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hongqi (marque). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101207044241/http://www.thetycho.com:80/spotted-in-china-faw-hongqi-ca7460/ to http://www.thetycho.com/spotted-in-china-faw-hongqi-ca7460/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hongqi (marque). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]