Talk:Proton Holdings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Volkswagen and Bugatti

It is completely irrelevant to the article that Volkswagen owns Bugatti. They own a lot of brands, Skoda, Audi, Seat, Porsche,... (89.204.137.211 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Protons in Ireland?

Does anyone have any proof that they were sold in Ireland in the late '80s? I have seen very few Irish-registered Protons in this country, and always assumed they were just used imports from the UK or something - I've seen more Vauxhalls with Irish plates than these, and they definately didn't sell them here! --Zilog Jones 22:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they were. There were a few small dealerships in the late 1990's but they're all gone now. I know that as I worked in a dealership for 10 years. Jacobsdad (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Protons Perd?

Is this a typo mistake? I've never seen or heard of this model?

Perd for Perdana i guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.12.112.96 (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

added company infobox

added company infobox. Should be the Proton Perdana. The Perdana is a luxury coupe sedan. That is what I am geussing.

dunno about Proton being in the UK market. I know they do on the Lotus Cars Ltd as their engineering and design subsidiary.

Takamaxa 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That company infobox is completely wrong: it's a copy-and-paste from the Mercedes-Benz pages, and it includes all the MB models. It needs to be taken out or edited pronto. 67.158.111.66 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons

Can you upload some pictures to the Commons please? We have no pictures in other Wikipedias. :-( --217.224.105.111 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Proton Word Logo.JPG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PROTON LOGO.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a Gen 2 Proton 2006 model bought here in South Africa.

Since new I have had the engine/ignition light repaired and replaced x times.

Now my question to you is what does this mean in real terms and why should this be a ongoing recurring problem,

The dealership tries but is not geeting it right

Riekie Hoft +27333429817

Sounds like bad luck, but I don't think this is the pace to ask for advice! Jacobsdad (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

c —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.208.104.31 (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Category

Added a category - the first! Hugo999 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it about Proton or Perodua

I noticed that there is a lot of text about Perodua, the other Malaysian car maker, in this article, enough to make you wonder if the article is about Proton or Perodua. So I suggest a clean-up. Thomas.W (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Youngman sales data reputability

Hello, good day.

On 27 February 2016, editor @Samhu: made the following edit to the Proton article. However, the one and only reference (published on 20 July 2015) provided was much too vague and ambiguous (China Passenger Car Association stopped reporting Youngman Lotus sales numbers because they were “way off” from registration numbers). It had no explicit mentions of fraud, but it did more or less confirm that the Youngman Lotus company ended operations and 'disappeared'. I reverted the edit, and explained that it was almost certainly because Proton had dumped Youngman in favour of another Chinese company (Goldstar), in February 2015. Thus, faced with a shortage of parts (knock-down kits and engines) from Malaysia, Youngman Lotus pulled the plug sometime in or before mid-2015.

However, editor Samhu was adamant that the Youngman sales data was fraudulent or inflated, and he explained his take on the matter at my talk page. I replied with some explanations and context for the Youngman company, all the while providing my sources for my statements. I've tried looking for a more concrete source to back up the alleged fraud, but I found nothing, only that of the Saab deal which didn't involve Proton. Again, Samhu was not convinced by all the context I've researched. In my second reply to him, I proved that new car sales data (registrations) in China are a classified state secret. The sales data we see are actually wholesale factory shipments from car companies to the dealers. Two Chinese government bodies (CAAM and CPCA) report wholesale data for all car companies in China, Youngman included. However, as mentioned in the 20 July article, CPCA had stopped reporting Youngman Lotus sales data (shipments) by mid-2015 (more precise, February 2015). This is coincidentally around the time Proton and Lotus publicised their Goldstar agreement. CPCA stopped reporting Youngman Lotus sales (shipments) because it didn't match up with their classified registrations data.

The thing is, this whole mess could be one of several things;

1. As claimed by Samhu, Youngman tried to inflate their sales data (reported higher sales) at some point between 2009 and 2015. Therefore, the entire Youngman sales data from 2009 onwards should denounced. My argument against this is simple; if this is really true, then why didn't CPCA/ CAAM stop reporting in say 2011 or 2013 instead ? Why did they wait until February 2015 ? And if so, how do we know the 2009 to 2014 data is inflated ? It is reasonable to assume that the 2015 data may fraudulent/ inflated, but it's a bit unreasonable to claim that 'all of it is bad'.

2. Because Youngman's dealer network had gradually shut down by mid-2015, new registrations would have surely dropped massively as a result. This would give off the false impression that Youngman is reporting much higher sales (shipments), and CPCA may conclude that Youngman is inflating them when the fact of the matter is, nobody's buying Youngman cars because the dealers have gone.

3. Because Proton cut supply of parts to Youngman, production ground to a halt. The 20 July article even says 'silently ceased production' in there. This would be the REVERSE of point (2) above, meaning factory shipments (sales) are far lower than new registrations (of old or existing dealer stock).

Again, it's difficult to decisively prove any of the above three statements (because registrations are classified), it's merely speculation, that's why I've concluded that until explicitly proven fraudulent or inflated, the 2009 to 2014 Youngman sales data would be left as is on the Proton page, as it has been for the last three years or so. The controversial 2015 data will not be cited here. If anyone here can read Chinese text, it would be helpful to have a local Chinese take on the matter. Certainly, as I've said from day one, I'm not against the removal of the Youngman Lotus sales data, I simply request that proper evidence be provided to justify its removal, as it's valuable info (as is the other sales charts (U.K., Australia etc.) I've created on there). I feel it's extremely unjust to nullify an entire chapter based on a sole ambiguous statement, which as of yet, has not been corroborated by any other media/ party.

I tried to sum things up as best I could, but if more context is required, it's all on my talk page. I await the response of editor @Samhu:.

Regards, Aero777 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Samhu (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's good that we have been asked for an executive summary to help clear up matters. Editor Aero777 has summed up the difference in opinion fairly well. I'll do my best to explain my grievance about Youngman sales figures listed in the same chart as Proton exports (and elsewhere) in the Global Operations segment in the Proton Automobiles Wikipedia entry.

The 3 points listed here are not answers to Aero777's entry above, but aimed directly at questioning the validity of the Youngman sales figures displayed with respect to Wikipedia guidelines, both in terms of being verified data and well as being relevant for inclusion in the Proton article at all.

1. My reference ( http://autochina.comnews.cn/d/44.html ) shows clearly that an authority in China has discredited Youngman Automobile's claimed sales figures. Though apparently inflating sales figures is not uncommon in China (according to Aero777), I feel it being "a norm" does not make it acceptable to include such claimed sales figures as unmitigated fact in Wikipedia. Even more so in the case of Youngman-provided sales figures, a company that has literally disappeared, apparenly with unpaid debts ( https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/3506372/all ). As finding out the actual registration figures, which I'm told is probably a near-impossibility in secretive China, I reason that the China Passenger Car Association (as close to a Chinese authority as we'll get) discrediting Youngman's sales figures as "way off" is as clear an indication that Youngman's sales figures were so inflated that they should not be taken seriously, even in an environment where somewhat inflated figures may be the norm. If an authority close to the ground does not accept Youngman's sales figures, why should we/Wikipedia?

2. My second grievance is the inclusion of Youngman's sales figures of cars, initially Proton models but which were then locally re-engineered to be manufactured in China by Youngman and sold as Lian-Hua, being classified as Proton exports. They were not “rebadged Proton's” by a long shot (http://www.carnewschina.com/2012/11/23/youngman-lotus-l5-gt-launched-on-the-guangzhou-auto-show/ ). Except for up to 10,000 fully built-up cars in total (mentioned informally in the text in Proton annual reports covering August 2008 to July 2010) that were exported by Proton to China (and I believe sold in China as Youngman-Lotus or Youngman-Europestar), it is difficult for me to comprehend how re-engineered and locally-manufactured vehicles in China by Youngman, sold under the Lian-Hua nameplate from then onwards, can be listed under "Proton car exports". Previous Proton car exports through the years to other countries listed have been "proper" exports of Proton cars; i.e. they left Proton Malaysia as assembled cars and were sold at their destination with the Proton nameplate. Irrefutably, "an exported Proton". Mixing Youngman manufactured and sold cars in a chart dominated by "real" Proton exported cars is wrong.

3. The fact that Proton had minimal involvement in any manufacture and sales of Youngman vehicles is very well reinforced by the lack of mention about Youngman in Proton annual reports. An average of 2.5 mentions of Youngman (in informal text, none in financial results) per annual report covering the 4-year period August 2007 to July 2011 and then for the reports covering August 2011 through July 2015, Youngman is unambiguously listed as a dormant company in the reports. Meaning all formal ties between Youngman and Proton were effectively severed before August 2011 at the very latest, and probably several accounting quarters before (due to accounting lag). (Proton Annual Reports 2008 to 2015 https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=9782E38D5AEECF8E!121&authkey=!ACkLKiB1lSOroTk&ithint=folder%2c )

In summary:

a) Youngman car sales figures are discredited and should not be quoted as fact in Wikipedia

b) Classifying sales (believed or not) of Youngman's China-manufactured Lian-Hua vehicles within the Proton exported vehicles section is wrong

c) Proton's involvement with Youngman in any capacity ended by August 2011 because Proton company reports covering periods from then onwards explicitly classify its Youngman operation as "dormant", so cars Youngman may (or may not) have sold cannot be attributed to Proton in any way from mid-2011 no matter what.

I believe this is more than enough to seriously question the validity of Youngman (and hence China sales/export) data listed and just as importantly question the suitability of listing Youngman (alleged) sales and manufactured Lian-Hua vehicles in Proton's global operation in Proton Automobile's Wikipedia entry.

Regards,

Samhu (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Will each of the two editors please state in one sentence (or at most two) what they think the question is? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Samhu (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Youngman car sales figures are discredited so should they be quoted as they have been in Proton's Global Operation?

Youngman's China-manufactured cars sold as Lian-Hua have little to do with Proton so should they be included in the bar chart and tables in that same section at all? Samhu (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Samhu (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No third opinion recorded during the 6 day listing allowed there.

Request for a third party opinion is now moved onto the Wikipedia Dispute resolution noticeboard. Samhu (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Hi @Samhu:,

To start off, I'd like to apologize first and foremost for my disappearance these last few days. Something happened and I was much too tied up dealing with that, but that's settled now. Although I couldn't respond here, I was thinking about how best we could solve the dispute, and it struck me that there's a far less troublesome solution; why not let the readers make their own conclusions ? Since there is little to no chance of decisively proving or invalidating Youngman Lotus' sales due to the classified Chinese car registration data, and no reputable media has picked up on Youngman's fall/ disappearance yet, this argument could go on forever and neither one of us will be better off.

I've edited the Proton and Youngman pages to show both Youngman Lotus' sales and production numbers between 2009 and 2015, and a direct copy of the statement from your original 20 July reference. This way, readers can make of it what they will. I will keep an eye out for any future articles about Youngman this year, you're welcome to do the same if you wish.

As for your second point above, that Youngman Lotus' cars are fundamentally different from Proton's cars; well, if you wanted to separate Youngman Lotus sales from Proton exports, you should have just brought this up on day one, and not two weeks later... I have no issues removing Youngman Lotus' sales from the Proton exports table, my gripe was almost entirely about the fraud allegations and sales reputability. I must correct you though; the article you highlighted was about the Lotus L5, not the L3. Indeed, the L5 is hardly a Proton, it's got a CamPro engine and is based on a modified GEN-2 platform but that's as far as it goes. It would be wrong to include Lotus L5 sales in Proton's export sales... and I never did, all this while, I've only talked about the Lotus L3. The L3 is very much a Proton Gen-2 / Proton Persona, it may not have a Proton badge, but the engine and platform is directly imported from Malaysia (CKD), and the body structure and much of the cosmetic components are still unchanged from the original Proton GEN-2/Persona. The L3 is very much a rebadged Proton, just like how the earliest Protons were rebadged Mitsubishis. Youngman would later tack on their own unique bumpers, rims and interior bits, but they never changed the core mechanics (except for the small batch with Mitsubishi 4G15M engines). Also, 'Lian Hua' is the Chinese way of saying 'Lotus'.

The original reason why I added in Youngman Lotus' (L3) figures as part of Proton's exports was because of the reasons above, and also because the Youngman page gets far less traffic and hence less exposure compared to the Proton page. And for the last few years, that was never a problem, but seeing that you feel Youngman Lotus (L3) sales should be separated regardless (even though they're still Protons for the most part), that's fine by me. If you really feel formalities take precedence over relevance, I don't see the point of opposing, it's no big deal anyway. I've removed 'China' and Youngman Lotus sales from the table, and moved the data down to the Partnerships section. The same info is reflected on the Youngman page. I have also removed the 1986-2013 export graph for now, I'll make another one (without Youngman Lotus sales) when MAA or MITI (not Proton) announces the remaining 2010 to 2015 Proton export data, for consistency. I will not however remake the Youngman Lotus graph. You're welcome to review the current state of both the Proton and Youngman articles.

I hope this latest solution is satisfactory. It's a fair compromise given what little definitive information we have to work with. I'm quite sure that time will shed more light on the Youngman story, we will eventually learn what really happened to them, whether it was foul play, a misunderstanding or something else entirely. But until that time comes, let's just agree to disagree and move on. I hope there's no hard feelings between us, and I hope you'll have a nice day ahead.

Regards, Aero777 (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Samhu (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk entry above and article edits by Aero777 make it clear he does not accept one of the two issues I specifically objected to, simply moving the dispute information to another section within the article. Issues I objected to in the Proton Global Operation section were

1) Youngman's China-manufactured cars sold as Lian-Hua have little to do with Proton so should they be included in the bar chart and tables in that same section at all?

The dispute about relevancy of this information has been satisfactorily resolved by its removal from the Global Operations section during the "unilateral" edit by Aero777. But the same information has now appeared in the text in the Youngman section within the same article still implying that Youngman Lian-Hua cars, "between mid-2009 and February 2015" are strongly associated in some way with Proton. This totally ignores the fact that the Youngman venture is listed as dormant in Proton;s own Annual Reports from mid-2011 and that Youngman Lian Hua cars were locally re-engineered and manufactured, with a Mitsubishi engines in 2012 (http://www.carnewschina.com/2012/11/23/youngman-lotus-l5-gt-launched-on-the-guangzhou-auto-show/) Continued inclusion of such figures for "between mid-2009 and February 2015" in their new location also totally ignores my second point which was

2) Youngman sales figures are discredited (http://autochina.comnews.cn/d/44.html)so should they be quoted as they have been at all?

The reference discrediting sales figures is much more recent than the posted (now discredited) production and sales figures.

The question remains - How can Youngman Lian-Hua cars have anything to do with Proton right through 2015 when Proton's venture with Youngman is listed as dormant in Proton's own Annual Reports (https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=9782E38D5AEECF8E!121&authkey=!ACkLKiB1lSOroTk&it) covering August 2011 onwards. If no satisfactory explanation, remove mention of Youngman's discredited sales figures within the Proton context.

Samhu (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Aero777 (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Since February 27th, I have repeatedly affirmed that until explicitly proven fraudulent or inflated, the sales data for Youngman Lotus cars will be left as is. User @Samhu: keeps dragging on this pointless argument and all this while, he could never decisively prove his claims of fraud. He constantly harps on his one and only reference to discredit Youngman's sales, a source which is much too ambiguous and insufficient to back his argument. Now he's saying that because Youngman is listed as 'Dormant' in Proton's annual reports, therefore the Proton-Youngman partnership is no longer valid from 2011 onwards; exactly how does that support his allegations of fraud ? The 'Dormant' status in the annual reports still doesn't prove anything significant, again, an example of an ambiguous statement being spun to confirm an existing bias. We need a headline that reads "Youngman Lotus - Small company with a big, dirty secret - Sales figures grossly inflated since 2009"... 'Dormant' or "way off" is just not explicit enough.

I have already removed the Youngman Lotus sales data from Proton's export table here, as well as the main graph. I have instead moved the 2009 to 2015 Youngman sales data to its appropriate section. I have worded it in a way that clearly outlines said sales data as 'reported by Youngman', and the "way off" statement from Samhu's original 20 July reference follows after. This is a reasonable compromise; this way, readers can make their own conclusions, simply because the current situation is unresolvable due to the secrecy of Chinese car registration data. I have advised Samhu on my latest talk page entry, that it's best to wait until we get a more conclusive media report on Youngman's disappearance. However, he hasn't bothered to reply my newest entry, and instead he re-submitted the argument to DRN.

On a side note, he claims that 'Lian-Hua' and Proton cars are completely different; yes, the L5 is, not the L3. The L3 is a rebadged Proton GEN-2/ Persona. The Mitsubishi engines ? They were not fitted to all of Youngman's cars, most came with CamPros. By some stroke of luck, my source of information (marklines.com) only just updated 2015 global engine production data on March 28th, and as I've correctly predicted on March 3rd, the new data shows a huge drop in CamPro engine exports to Youngman in 2015. Here are the screencaps (because the website requires a membership); Youngman Lotus China production 2009-2015, Proton CamPro Malaysia production 2009-2014 (screencap from March 3rd), ditto, 2009-2015 (screencap from today/ Mar 29th). If you subtract Youngman Lotus L3 2015 production (Jan & Feb) of 5,703 units against Proton's 2015 exports to them (3,019 and 2,896 units), it'll give 212 unused/ unaccounted engines. This discrepancy in Youngman's own reported production versus Proton's annual CamPro production reports shows that both sources are separate, and not just a reflection of one another. Here's the production vs. sales vs. exports graph I created on March 3rd for comparison.

I've already done and researched all I could have at this point, and my original stance is still unchanged since day one; we simply don't have enough information to fully validate allegations of fraud and inflation, so we cannot discredit the entirety of Youngman's reported sales data.

Regards, Aero777 (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Samhu (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe all issues except one have been cleared up. I still don't understand how, when Proton in its official Annual Reports lists it's Youngman venture as dormant covering the period from mid-2011 onwards, that Youngman activities from then on are relevant to Proton? Just try fitting this undisputable fact in the Youngman entry as it currently stands in Proton (automobiles) and it'll be obvious that there is a serious data conflict that needs to be resolved if that section is to remain credible and relevant.

Samhu (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Aero777 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection of the 'Dormant' statement, I found that once again, a huge misunderstanding has occurred. 'Lotus Youngman UK Automotive Company Limited', listed as 'Dormant' in Proton's 2012 annual report is merely a shell company that was registered on January 13th, 2012. The true nature or purpose of this shell company was not revealed, but it was speculated that former Group Lotus boss Dany Bahar and another executive had set it up as "a vehicle to facilitate the purchase of Lotus assets in an eventual sale". This is directly quoted from web.pdf this article here, dated April 17th, 2012. As you may or may not know, Dany Bahar was fired in mid-2012 from Group Lotus by Proton's parent company, DRB-HICOM for a whole host of reasons, chiefly gross misuse of funds. Since then, Group Lotus has managed to cut down their losses under the current boss, Jean-Marc Gales. Lotus may break even this year, as 2015 had been a good year for the company.

The division of Lotus responsible for the design of the Lianhua L5 is Lotus Engineering, not Lotus Youngman UK Automotive. This fact is corroborated by both Lotus and Youngman, it even says so in the article you provided. And Lotus Engineering (both Shanghai and England) are NOT 'Dormant', even up to Proton's 2015 annual report, they are listed as 'Engineering consultancy services'. Meanwhile, the shell company Lotus Youngman UK Automotive did not even exist prior to Proton's 2012 annual report. It is not there in their 2011, 2010, 2009 reports... simply non-existent. Only Lotus Engineering and Lotus Engineering (Shanghai) are consistently listed, from 2009 to 2015.

I have decisively resolved your concerns, again. Thrice now, you haven't properly researched your claims before passing judgement; first, by not realizing that all Chinese new car sales figures are self-reported and verified by CAAM/CPCA, second, by not being able to distinguish the fact that the Youngman Lotus L3 is by all accounts a rebadged Proton GEN-2/ Persona, and that the L5 is not, and lastly, by picking out the wrong company without double-checking who or what they really are. I doubt other users will take your allegations seriously at this point, by continuing this pointless argument, you have only worn down your credibility in the last few weeks. This is the last I will iterate; we must wait for a more decisive and explicit explanation behind Youngman Lotus' disappearance and sales reputability. Until an official statement is issued by either Youngman, Lotus, or Proton in the future, or until a reputable site can publish a piece on Youngman Lotus' story, there is really no point dragging this argument on any further. I will keep an eye out for Youngman news in the future. Until then, this whole Youngman matter will be treated as 'closed' or 'unresolvable'.

Regards, Aero777 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Samhu (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am continuing the discussion back here because it went stale on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard with the following advice

"Stale. No volunteer willing to take case in 6 days, consider a request for comments if not tried already." TransporterMan (TALK) 14:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If we cannot solve the remaining issue here, I will follow up as advised by the volunteer. Samhu (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Samhu (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The explanation about the sudden appearance of the entity Lotus Youngman UK as a dormant entity in DRB/Proton's annual report in 2012 is enlightening. Thank you for your research.

I should have been more diligent – that entity is listed as a subsidiary of Lotus Cars Limited, while Proton’s venture in cars into China in 2007 was of course between Proton (actual accounting entry is under Perusahaan Otomobile Nasional Sdn. Bhd – Proton Automobiles China Ltd.) and Youngman.

I'm afraid you have also picked the wrong entity to follow; Lotus Engineering Company Limited (Shanghai) is also a subsidiary of Lotus Cars Limited, which makes its first appearance only in Proton's 2008 Annual Report, listed under “Engineering Services” as opposed to “Manufacturing”, in which Proton Automobiles China Ltd made an entry a year earlier.

A very telling fact about Proton Automobiles China Limited, over the period covered by annual reports 2005-2011, is that it is an active entity EXCEPT for the period covering 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2006 when it is listed dormant. This is when it had wound down its venture Goldstar Proton Automobiles Co. Ltd (in which it had a 49% stake) but had not started anything else in China. Proton Automobiles China Limited has been dormant again since DRB/Proton Annual Report 2012, indicating no activity since 1st April 2011.

From which it is quite clear that Proton’s official involvement with Youngman was limited to the accounting period 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2011, via Proton Automobiles China Limited. And from references within Proton’s Wikipedia entry, I see that the “supply contract” between Proton and Youngman Automobile which was inked around mid-2007 would “involve a minimum of 30,000 CBU Proton over a period of 20 months from first vehicle delivery”, which would fall comfortably within period that Proton Automobiles China Limited was active (during its Youngman era). That oft mentioned “six-year collaboration” as far as I can tell was never for “product” (i.e. manufacturing), but more to do with Lotus Engineering services helping Youngman develop cars which did happen.

A key phrase from this April 2012 reference, quoting Lotus directly is "Lotus has an “engineering services agreement” with Youngman (i.e. they are an engineering client and some of their vehicles use the licensed wording “Engineered By Lotus” on them.". Proton is not mentioned with reference to Youngman at all; totally logical because Proton Automobiles China Limited was already into its second year of dormancy by then.

By the way, you will have zero chance of getting updates from Youngman Automotive (remember, company has "disappeared") or Proton (only dormant links to China since April 2011). You might get an update from Lotus regarding operations in China, but it would be restricted to its core business which is consulting in engineering services.

So again, I have to ask – with no accountable Proton (Automobiles China Limited) operation listed as active after 31 March 2011 at the latest, how can anything that Youngman made since then have relevance to Proton? The Youngman entry in the article needs significant revision, with this fact in mind. Samhu (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

With each follow-up response, you have only diminished your credibility even further. Again, for the second time, you have utterly failed to double-check the company in question, this time being Proton Automobiles (China) Ltd. (PAC). Clearly, you haven't learnt anything from your previous mistake, and again, you've tried to spin an ambiguous statement to confirm your existing bias.

Proton Automobiles (China) Ltd. (PAC), a full subsidiary of Proton, was created in 2002. PAC is merely a holding company for Goldstar Proton Automobiles Co. Ltd., in which Proton holds a 49% stake. The remaining was held by China-based Goldstar Heavy Manufacturing Ltd.. The joint venture was between Goldstar and Proton, Lotus was not involved at this stage. In 2002, Proton had intended to market their cars as Protons in China (not Lotus/ Europestar/ Lianhua etc.). Goldstar, as Proton's Chinese partner, was required to obtain a licence from the Chinese government to produce Proton's vehicles in China. However, many years passed and Goldstar failed to obtain said license after 4 years of waiting (dormant), so Proton decided to drop them in favour of Youngman Lotus. Goldstar was not too pleased with Proton's change of mind, and they sued Proton for what they perceived as a breach of contract. Long story short, the dispute was settled in February 2010 at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, who ruled in favour of Proton. By this time, Proton/ Lotus Engineering had already worked with Youngman for four years, and they continued to work with Youngman up until early 2015, when Proton and Lotus officially announced that Youngman will be dropped in favour of Goldstar. Apparently, Goldstar finally got the approval from the Fujian government.

The short summary above completely invalidates your third, fifth, sixth and eighth paragraphs. There is absolutely no relationship between Youngman and Goldstar. Yet, you have undoubtedly referred to Proton Automobiles (China) and Youngman as if they were both the same companies; this is false. Your statement on the 30,000 CBU supply contract being between Youngman-through-Proton Automobiles (China) and Proton is false; it was between Youngman and Proton only. Proton Automobiles (China) was included as early as in Proton's 2002 annual report. (2000-2011 reports here.) Lotus Engineering (Shanghai) is correctly listed in Proton's 2008 annual report, as it was incorporated in the financial period of 1st April 2007 to 31st March 2008, while the Proton-Lotus-Youngman deal began in mid-2007, after Proton published their 2007 annual report in March that year. Your fourth paragraph needs no explanation, it is correct and as expected. We know that the period, 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2006 is around the time when Proton had dropped Goldstar in favour of Youngman (4 years since the original 2002 agreement). The last sentence in your sixth paragraph; again, there is no relationship between Youngman and Proton Automobiles (China). To my knowledge, Lotus Engineering (Shanghai) and Goldstar had no formal ties up until early 2015, and Lotus Engineering (Shanghai) had only offered their services to Youngman. Your seventh paragraph; I have already clarified this weeks ago, Youngman Lotus (passenger car division) is dead and gone, but Youngman (parent company) is not, the big man, one Mr. Pang Qingnian is still alive. As long as he and Youngman are alive, we may still get an answer from them.

You have made a complete fool of yourself, twice now, I hope you're happy. After all I've said over the last five or six weeks, you're still trying to lengthen this pointless debate. This is the fourth time now that you've failed to properly research the subject matter in greater detail before passing judgement. Also, why did you corrupt my reference in my 2nd April statement ? It currently reads "... quoted from web.pdf this article here, dated April...", and it originally read "... quoted from this article here, dated April...". This is a very suspicious discrepancy, I hope it was not intentional.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve, or whether you have some personal grudge against me, Proton, or Youngman, but I'm not going to entertain you and fuel this argument any further. I'm getting the impression that you are someone who can't be reasoned with, someone who refuses to listen and exercise common courtesy. For the latter few weeks, you've (unknowingly or intentionally) used false information to justify your existing bias, only to have virtually all of it rubbished time and time again. This is no longer a dispute, it has boiled down to some form of personal attack, harassment or even trolling, for the lack of a better word. If you continue to reply with ambiguous, misleading or poorly researched information as a basis, I will have sufficient evidence and justification to report you to whom it may concern, and you may run the risk of getting banned from Wikipedia. No, I am not threatening you, not at all, I am merely warning you to stop arguing before you lose whatever credibility you have left. It is in your best interest to drop it, and let it go.

Sincerely, Aero777 (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Samhu (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have opted not to further probe the tenuous link between Youngman Automotive of China and Proton from April 2011 onwards, even though Proton's 2011 annual report was the last time (to date) that Youngman's Chinese operation makes an appearance in Proton's annual reports.

Furthermore, I will not pursue the accuracy of the published Chinese Youngman sales/production figures despite believing that using original research from sources which ultimately derived their figures from Youngman Lotus, essentially a discredited and defunct enterprise, may not be consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.

Samhu (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind co-operation, Samhu. I appreciate it. As mentioned previously, I will continue to keep an eye out for any official statements from all parties involved. In time, we will surely find a decisive and explicit explanation for Youngman Lotus' disappearance and sales reputability.

Regards, Aero777 (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. I am following the suggestion by Samhu to move this to Proton Holdings, per WP:NATURAL. SSTflyer 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Proton (automobile) → Proton (company) – Per WP:PRECISE. More commonly used disambiguator on Wikipedia. SSTflyer 13:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support move - Proton Holdings in probably even more appropriate. The "Berhad" in its name translates into "Limited". The various Proton automobile models have their own Wikipedia pages.Samhu (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Maybe I'm wrong but IMHO "automobile"'s more precise than company, –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you mean to support? WP:PRECISE states that titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. SSTflyer 05:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: the precedent is to use "automobile" for disambiguation. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.