Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Category:Mid-engined vehicles[edit]

Category:Mid-engined vehicles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

What general level of weight needed to include recall information on a manufacture page[edit]

I'm repeating a question I asked a few months back because it wasn't sufficiently answered. In short, how do we as a group decide if a recall or series of related recalls (or other similar issue) should be mentioned on a manufacture's page vs a model page? In 2015 a related discussion asked about including recalls on automotive pages [[1]]. The discussion used an example of a model page and offered common sense suggestions that were accepted by consensus. However, I think we can agree that a manufacture's page should have a higher bar. As an example, the first year of the US Ford Focus was plagued with recalls. Because the car was a big deal to Ford and due to the large number of recalls, the issue was mentioned by MSN and on the wiki page [[2]]. However, while having weight in context of the Focus, I think we would agree these recalls don't have sufficient weight to be covered on the Ford Motor Company page. Conversely, the Explorer-Firestone tire recall was significant enough to merit mention on both the model and manufacture page.

Question: What standard should we apply when considering recall or other similar information for inclusion on a manufacture's page? I don't have a hard and fast rule but I would generally say those that are associated (proven or otherwise) with deaths or wide spread injury, those which resulted in changes to regulations (the Firestone tire issue helped push the tire pressure monitor regulation), resulted in Congressional hearings or had some other notable impact should be included. I'm interested in the views of others in this area. Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that any recalls that adversely affect the company, beyond immediate sales blips and such. VW diesel engines, GM diesel engines, all obvious. If there were a huge number of lesser recalls - in themselves not noteworthy enough - that combine to say something about the overall performance of the company, then they should be included. How to tell? If non-automotive media directly concern themselves with such a situation, then presto. I feel that the standards should be similar to whether or not we include awards: It would be correct to include that Renault, for instance, has won the second most European Car of the Year awards, or that Nissan was the first Japanese manufacturer to receive it. But listing them all and so forth is not particularly fruitful. Personally I believe in judgement over policy, though. Oh, and see the Chrysler talk page for more on this fascinating topic...  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that when a series of recalls aggregate into something then they should be covered in that fashion. This is how the Focus recalls were included on that car's model page. It's not that any particular recall was significant but the MSN covered them in aggregate because it was, if I recall, the most recalled car of all time at the time. That said, I think we agree that those recalls didn't receive anywhere near the media coverage heaped on the Explorer-Firestone tire recall and shouldn't make it to the manufacture page. Springee (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo. The convention we adopted in July 2015, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 39#Recalls-notability, is adequate for all automobile (and motorcycle) articles. There's no need for a separate rule for company pages and model pages. Adding on extra hoops to jump through, like Congressional hearings, or new regulations, is not needed. The mainstream media is our guide. When you start adding conditions so that you can ignore what the MSM tells us worth paying attention to, you're making due weight a reflection of who is editing. The same article with different editors would look totally different, depending on what kind of MSM coverage those particular editors choose to discount as "trivial". But if you accept dispassionately whatever the MSM tells you is important, articles will tend to turn out with the same content no matter who edits the or what those particular editors like or don't like.

    Chrysler is the only article where this has ever been in dispute. And there has never been a problem of Chrysler sandbagged with mentions of 100 trivial recalls. Or 50, or 10. Or 5. Chrysler mentions zero recalls, and so far every single attempt to add even one recall has been reverted. Even recalls that meet the current convention, and even recalls that have been shown to impact the company as a whole, or set records, or have been included in MSM lists of most/worst/notorious recalls. If the marque/company articles on Chrysler or BMW or whatever do end up with what looks like a too-long list of recalls that all meet the above convention, and the rest of the article has been so improved that it is a GA candidate, then perhaps the numbers could be trimmed back in that article. But that is totally hypothetical, and per WP:BEANS, we don't need a new rule to protect us from going over a cliff we haven't even begun to approach. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How would "status quo", the 2015 conversation which I already linked in the opening question, address something like the Ford Focus recalls? I guess it could in a sense because the weight the media gave to the Explorer-Firestone recall was far greater than that given to the Focus recalls though both made it to the MSN and in sufficient coverage to pass the bar set in the 2015 discussion. The Chrysler article is the only case where this, thus far, has been in dispute but I think the issue can apply to any manufacture's page. Simply saying that the list of recalls is short isn't justification for including or excluding a particular recall. Earlier this year the only recall listed on the Chrysler page was a brake booster recall. I removed that recall as insignificant [[3]]. At the time that meant removing the whole recall section. Dennis seems to be arguing that removing that one recall was wrong because the article wasn't flooded with recalls. In that case should we add the Honda CR-V oil filter fire issue, covered by MSN, to the Honda page (it has zero recalls right now)? Regardless, I would suggest leaving the Chrysler specific arguments to that talk page. I made a comment on the Ford Motor Company talk page regarding similar edits [[4]]. The policy of WEIGHT doesn't say we should include a minor recall just because the article isn't currently flooded with other recall information. The problem with the 2015 discussion is if we read it as Dennis is suggesting that the "test of weight" is MSN coverage. I think we can all agree that given the far broader scope of a manufacture page the needed weight for inclusion should be greater. After that the question becomes how do we judge. Springee (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
My answer to your question is that recalls of the Ford Focus should be "mentioned in articles when they have received widespread attention in the MSM. This does not include single MSM articles mentioning them as they are announced." What is the problem?

What "Dennis seems to be arguing" is right there for anyone to read. Maybe I should add that given the choice between options listed at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM vs the blunt instrument of WP:CANTFIX, this and this were not absolutely necessary. Especially given the ugly edit war and astoundingly long, and bitter, discussions that followed. Meanwhile Rome burned, so to speak: Chrysler was and still is a really poor article. It failed to mention -- at all -- the 1979 bailout, a critical event in Chrysler's history, and American financial history as a whole. Totally left out! Meanwhile the article falsely claimed Chrysler faced bankruptcy in 1955. Oops. The spirit of policies like WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is to put your energy into building an encyclopedia by building articles, not triggering angry edit wars over. You put a roof on your house before fighting over where to put the coffee table. Imagine how much bloodshed would have been averted if you had replaced the recall that didn't quite meet the convention with any one of several Chrysler recalls that do pass that bar? Or just tagged it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. The Focus recalls were mentioned by several MSN sources and are rightly included in the Focus article. If an editor decided to add the recall information to the Ford Mo Co article would you support them? The rest of your comment is Chrysler specific and should be discussed there. Springee (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, why wouldn't I? Something about the Ford Focus recalls is bothering you and I can't read your mind. What's the problem? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors involved in 2015 discussion and those involved in the recent Chrysler discussion. @CZmarlin:, @Damotclese:, @Markbassett:, @Historianbuff:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Collect:, @Greglocock:, @CtrlXctrlV:, @OSX:, @Charles01:, @Trekphiler:, @Dennis Brown:

I think that maybe we ought to mention that the reason we are discussing this again is because a few editors are trying to turn the Chrysler entry into a quadriplegic. If the discussion seems weird and heated, it's because most of it is taking place on another plane entirely. And I don't reckon that the Focus recalls currently ought to be on the FoMoCo page. However, if there are noteworthy articles that suggest that the company is plagued with recalls to the point that it is seriously impacting their profitability or long-term survival, then such recalls should be included.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much stress for me, but thanks! I think I am better suited for adding content than deciding arguments...  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Citroën 2CV[edit]

Hi all, User:John has correctly taken a dislike to the sprawling and unkempt 2CV entry. However, he has decided to use a katyushka rather than pruning shears and I am struggling to restrain his deletionist enthusiasm while also adding sources. Would love a few additional eyes if there are any around. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

H6, F6 or flat six?[edit]

Is there a standard for which is used in articles (and info boxes) I've noticed H6 in some Porsche articles, and flat six in others. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile engine credit for designer[edit]

Is there a reason there is a parameter for designer in the automobile version but none in the engine version? There have been famous automobile engines and I think their deservedly famous designers should be given credit in the infobox. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

Request for comments in the article “Diesel engine”[edit]

Hello. I have opened a request for comments in the article Diesel engine regarding the contribution of George Brayton to the development of this type of engines. I am posting this to invite editors who are knowledgeable on the history of internal combustion engines to contribute to the discussion. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC).

Requested move: Infiniti M to Infiniti Q70[edit]

FYI, Talk:Infiniti M#Requested move 24 August 2016. OSX (talkcontributions) 14:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Third-generation VW Touareg[edit]

Recently, an editor that I consider at large a disruptive (and acting in bad faith) one, Matvei Gromov (even if some of his edits can seem "neutral" in nature), has included info about a supposed third-generation Touareg. I may be wrong, but I understand it will be launched in 2017 or 2018 and will use the MLB platform, not the (really outdated) PL71. I also doubt it will be actually smaller than the previous generation, as the automotive industry tendency is exactly the opposite. It seems he copy-pasted the first generation specs. As no editor with knowledge on the marque seems to question it, I wonder if VW really launched the third-generation Touareg in any market. Someone can confirm this to me? I want to know how much is true on his claims before take any action. Also, the picture he uploaded and included didn't seem a "new generation" but the restyling at best (as a sidenote, I doubt he really took it...). --Urbanoc (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Until the third-generation is actually announced it should not be discussed at all. There is nothing encyclopaedic about reporting on rumour mills. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - I removed the unsourced info and requested all new info on that to come with a source from now on. As for the image, I highlight Dennis Bratland who discovered its origins, it was not a Matvei Gromov picture and it wasn't a "third-generation" Touareg either. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose: Add notoriety statement to Ford F-650 article for use in 1995 for Oklahoma City Bombing Suggestion[edit]

Propose: In the Ford F-650 article add: "Notoriety: A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing" The wording can be modified. The source and description is in the bombing article; the details don't have to be repeated in the Ford article.

Reason: The F-700 was used in the bombing, and I think is a notable fact to add to the Ford article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, more than an automobile catalog and includes notable uses, good and bad, of automobiles and other objects.

Background: User:Springee recommended discussing the addition in this project page. A gun article added a notoriety use, and in a discussion it was mentioned there was no statement in regarding the F-700 being used in the bombing, so I thought I would add the statement.

FYI, Additional sources:Denver Post, Michigan Law review Trial Stories, Terrorism and WMDs: Awareness and Response, Nine Principles of Litigation and Life CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability doesn't limit article content, as explained at the top of Wikipedia:Notability. Removing content because it's "not notable" has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The fact that it was an F-700 is undisputed, not a matter of opinion, so WP:UNDUE is irrelevant. The word "notoriety" has no sourcing, however. While it's a fact that the F-700 was used in the bombing, no sources say that the F-700 became well-known for its association with the bombing. This is in contrast to the Ryder truck rental brand, which did receive significant attention due to the use of Ryder trucks in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (a Ford Econoline van, also used in the 1973 Sterling Hall bombing) and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. See NYT 2001 for example. The phrase "Ryder truck" appears in almost every article you find on the Oklahoma bombing, while only a few add the detail that it was an F-700. Ryder played a role in the investigation of both bombings, particularly in the use of their rental records to identify the suspects. So I don't have a problem with stating the fact that the bombing used an F-700 truck, but it shouldn't say the F-700 truck is famous for that. It's an obscure fact, not a notorious one.

On the other hand, there are much stronger reasons for the article Ryder should give more mention to its connection to these two bombings. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose : Yes, the stories mention that the truck was an F700 but that doesn't mean that it's widely or even in limited terms associated with the bombing. This isn't even like the gun articles where often times the type of gun is vilified by anti-[gun type here] views in the media. This just happened to have been the type of truck that was rented. So on simply common sense terms, exclude. We can also talk about weight. A web search for "Ford F700" news articles yields 4720 hits. Add Oklahoma City to that search and you are left with just 87 and almost all seem to be about athletics. Yes, some articles mentioned the type of truck but, unlike the gun articles, none seem to be calling for bans or considerations regarding who has access to Ford medium duty trucks. Springee (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This discussion should be added to the article talk page. Springee (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether anyone calls for a ban on something is a really arbitrary, ultra-specific criterion to introduce. If the sources mention the F700 in relation to the bombing, then we should mention it too, regardless of why. If we consider a source reliable, we should be guided by what the source does. If we don't respect a source's choice to put the bombing and the truck together, then we must not consider that source reliable. In this case, the sources don't frequently put the F700 and the bombing together. Why? Not for us to judge.

They do mention the brand Ryder in the majority of books and news articles about the two bombings, however. We should mention the bombings in relation to Ryder for that reason, without introducing our own personal judgements as to whether or not the source ought to mention that brand. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that we don't see many sources linking the Ford truck to the bombing thus we have a weight issue. I think you raise an interesting issue mentioning RS when a thing (truck, gun etc) is mentioned by name in connection with a crime. Either way, it seems we both agree that there isn't sufficient weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not mischaracterize my words. Other editors are perfectly capable of reading what I said and understanding it for themselves, without you reinterpreting it to say the exact opposite of what I said.

You must have missed where I said above we don't have a weight issue. There is no fringe theory that the truck was a Chevy. WP:UNDUE deals with balancing different points of view, and giving space only to those with significant following and minimizing mention of those far out of the main stream. Since there is no "majority view" and no "minority view" about the F700 in the bombing, undue weight is irrelevant. Weight is a part of the Neutral point of view policy, which is also irrelevant. We have no need to be neutral between viewpoint A and viewpoint B.

You also missed the part above where I said "I don't have a problem with stating the fact that the bombing used an F-700 truck". The only thing I object to is the use of the word "notoriety". We should state the fact the truck was used in the bombing, without editorializing.

If you read a little more in the sources on the Oklahoma bombing, the fact that the truck's key was stamped with a code which could be used to find out which truck it came from figured prominently in the McVeigh trial. The key McVeigh dropped was used to corroborate witness testimony against McVeigh.[5][6]. So it isn't as if the characteristics of the truck had no bearing on events. The Ford's axle serial number was relevant as well. Had the truck been a Volvo or Isuzu, without these numbers stamped on the keys, events would have played out differently.

I would not exclude mention of the 1932 Ford V8 in the history of Bonnie and Clyde, nor exclude Clyde Barrow's preference to rob banks in a Ford V8, on the grounds that no group proposed banning these cars because of their use in these crimes. What a weird rule.

The only reason I can think of to expunge mention of these brands in articles about the brands/products is a strong desire to protect the image of the brand. We have no reason at all to do that. If we were protecting a low-profile living person from having their name tied to a crime, that would be entirely different. The Biographies of living persons policy does say we must avoid negative associations of living people without strong, compelling sources to justify that.

The BLP policy does not apply to the Ford F-700, or any other corporation or product. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland, I removed the word notoriety, (using strikethrough for a revision history), from the proposal. I understand your point the sources do not support the word "notoriety", the F-700 did not become bad-famous because of the bombing; and the criteria "notability" does not apply to article content. Thank you for your information, and education on Wikipedia writing.
User:Springee, My comments: The weight issue is irrelevant, as User:Dennis Bratland described above and per Neutral point of view. The F-700 being used in the bombing is a fact, irrelevant of how many search results are found. Not writing the fact I believe is censoring the fact, (much as I dislike fact). User:Dennis Bratland also noted the F-700 key code and axel serial # were important evidence in the trial. Thank you for your comments,CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis is misreading WP:WEIGHT. It applies even in cases when the facts or interpretations aren't in dispute. Yes, much of the section talks about cases where we have differing points of view. However, it also applies in cases where the information is of limited significants with respect to the topic. Thus we don't put something about Ford having a new plant in Kansas (an example I invented) in the Ford parent article. Anyway, of specific interest in WP:Weight (and the balance subsection):
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description...
"Aspects" means that even in cases where the facts aren't in dispute that doesn't mean the subject is of sufficient weight for inclusion. Furthermore, in the WP:BALANCE subsection of weight:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
Again it is noted that just because the facts aren't in dispute doesn't mean inclusion hence the web search results I mentioned. Springee (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we all agree that a Ford F-700 was used in the bombing. In the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing article it is perfectly appropriate to mention this fact because it is relevant to the bombing. However, it did not materially affect the design, marketing, sales or reputation of the F-700. So, according to WP:TRIVIA, mentioning the F-700's use in the bombing in the Ford F-650 article is just trivia and is not suitable. Similar to mentioning it's appearance in a movie.  Stepho  talk  01:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Stepho-wrs, I do not consider the F-700 use in the bombing trivia, nor that WP:Trivia applies, but that the use (bad use) of the F-700 in the bombing is important. It could be added the design, marketing, sales or reputation, due to the bombing were not affected, if it can be sourced, to the statement. But I consider the article more than just the F-700, its use in the world, the bombing is important too. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Springee, I think the statement has due weight. Try googling Ford F-700 Oklahoma city bombing and you will get more results. But I don't think the number of search results is a deciding criteria, it is the use of the F700 in the bombing. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The adjective "neutral" means not supporting either side. "Point of view" refers to an attitude, a belief system, an agenda. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view describes very clearly in the introduction that it is about points of view: how we treat "significant views". It goes on to say we don't describe facts as opinions, or opinions/contested views as facts, and use unbiased language. And, finally, we "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", which is where undue weight comes in. But OK, some editors think that neutrality also requires focusing on "aspects" -- that the mere mention of a fact, even an undisputed one, is also a neutrality issue even on a non-BLP. Even when there is no significant point of view that asserts that the F-700 should not be spoken of in relation to the bombing. We don't even have anyone, not even Ford, only some editors, who say we shouldn't have it on this article.

We should respect that, that some editors think there is an undue weight issue. So we should write this: "A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing [undue weight? ]." Too much of the article, proportionately, is about the bombing, and the tag notes we think that problem needs to be fixed.

At some future date, when the article has grown beyond a mere ~750 word stub and then covers all aspects of the F-650/F-700 comprehensively, it will be very likely that that one sentence, in relation to the much larger amount of content about everything else, will no longer seem disproportionate. Then the tag can be removed. If, even then, consensus says it is still disproportionate, or that one sentence is preventing the article from achieving Good Article status, then it could be deleted. If we are going to insist that every minor part of the Neutral point of view policy page must be followed to the letter, ignoring the overall gist of the policy and instead making sure that even that one paragraph on "aspects" is scrupulously obeyed, to the letter, on this stub article Ford F-650, then it's rather tendentious to fail to follow any other part of the NPOV policy.

Such as the admonition not to use "neutrality as an excuse to delete". Keeping the allegedly unduly weighted text is also consistent with the Editing policy: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary.".

It's very likely that if Ford F-650 were a GA or FA, it would make at least a passing mention of this fact, and the policy says we should keep it. I'm certain an FA version of this article would give details about the key codes and axle serial number evidence. This is how we build an encyclopedia: one piece at a time. If somebody deletes every addition because it's not perfect, we will never get anywhere. If we must be this strict about policy, then so be it. Do what policy says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Dennis, weight applies here and says we should not include facts etc that are not significant to the topic even if they are significant in there own right. Please show us an a couple of articles about the truck that focus or even mention the bombing. If such articles exist that would suggest that people, outside of Wikipedia, who write about this subject (the truck, not the bombing) find this to be an important detail. Springee (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Dennis Bratland, User:Springee.
1. I think the weight exists, and the statement proposed is significant to include in this article. Articles "about the truck" mentioning the bombing are irrelevant as an inclusion criteria in an encyclopedia, the news articles and books that exist are adequate.
2. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are subjective general principles, not specific defined measurable criteria. We have different opinions on the principle's meanings. I do not read any policy excluding the statement.
3.I believe we wait for other editors opinions.
4. Article aside, thanks to both of you for your explanations and viewpoints on Wikipedia.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The phony requirement for "articles about the truck that focus or even mention the bombing" is a paraphrase of the general notability guideline. That would be the criteria to write a separate article about the truck's role in the bombing. That is not the minimum standard for including a sentence in an article. Once again, we're right back to the erroneous edit summary. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Is that really an argument you want to hang your hat on? I apologize that my common vernacular use of the term notable was not actually the same as WP:NOTE and seems to have caused you confusion. I guess I should have said "WP:weight" since the issue is insufficient weight to justify mention of the crime on the article page of the vehicle. I would also note... err... mention that it's best to stick with the arguments here. You quoted a sound argument I've made here and tried to discredit it with a quick edit note. Why not explain why WP:weight doesn't apply in this case? You are trying to claim that the bombing is relevant to the topic of the truck (vs the other way around). OK, well since we should follow reliable sources, find a reliable source about the truck that mentions the bombing. If not, please accept that there just isn't sufficient weight for inclusion. What's next, should we add the Columbine school shooting to the BMW 320 page? Also, please do not restore the disputed content when there is clearly an on going discussion about the material AND consensus does not support inclusion at this point. Springee (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
See WP:STONEWALL. No version will ever meet all your spurious criteria, nor have 100% consensus. You are preventing forward progress and violating editing policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
And see WP:BRD. We were in the discussion phase so why did you jump the gun to the adding phase? Springee (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Weight aside, why add the material to an article about a series of trucks introduced in 2000? The bombing occurred in 1995 and the truck in question was a Ford F-700. The older F-700 doesn't seem to have a page but the best link is probably the B-series page Ford_B-Series which covers the medium duty Ford trucks through 1998 or on this page (which is in poor shape) [[7]] Springee (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If you thought it belonged on that article, why didn't you move it there, instead of delete it? This is item #2 under WP:STONEWALL: "Bad-faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised."--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the accusations of bad faith. To be 100% honest, I hadn't initially noticed that the article under current discussion relates only to the MY2000 and later medium duty trucks. I think we can all agree that the arguments for and against inclusion would apply just as aptly to the older article as here. Either the content has weight for inclusion in the correct Ford truck article or it doesn't. Perhaps the bad faith accusation would have merit had I not suggested the correct subject article at all or if I had noticed sooner (note that others also didn't notice this error). Springee (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I knew it. You weren't going to accept it on any article. Exactly the bad faith I was talking about. Tomorrow you'll make up five new hoops you hve to jump through before you can so much as mention this bad thing that happened on an article about Ford. Please stop what you're doing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis, until earlier this evening I, like apparently everyone in this discussion, mistakenly assumed the F-650/F-750 article was the correct target article. I, like you and the rest, put forth a number of reasons for/against inclusion. Anyone of us COULD have noticed that the article only covered MY2000 and later trucks but we didn't. So now I have noticed that it was added to the wrong article. OK. So how is that bad faith? How does it change any of our arguments to realize the material should be in some other Ford truck article? It would only be bad faith on my part if consensus was for inclusion and I deliberately used this to prevent inclusion in the appropriate article. I don't see how that could happen in this case. Springee (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Springee When I searched Wikipedia for Ford F-700, the search result directed me to the Ford F-650 article, which is the reason I thought the proposed statement belonged in the F-650 article per: top of article"...Redirected from Ford F-700)"CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Totally understandable. Please don't take my comment as a criticism. That said, while F-700 redirects here, it is also clear that this article is about the 2000 and later trucks developed in collaboration with Navistar. The truck used in the bombing was a 1993 model not covered in this article. Springee (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Springee re:"find a reliable source about the truck that mentions the bombing." Again, this is an irrelevant argument, the news articles and books are adequate for the statement.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this is relevant. To include in the article the material must have WP:Weight with respect to the article in question. We can use external coverage of the subject (ie articles about the truck that also mention the bombing) to establish that weight. As Andy rightly pointed out, notoriety is not commutative. The volume of "F-700" coverage in the bombing articles pales in comparison to the total volume of F-700 coverage in all sources (hence very limited weight overall) and so far we have no sources about the truck that feature the bombing (indicating that external sources don't find the use of the truck in that case to be relevant when discussing the truck itself). Springee (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I think, not commutative is invalid and irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Volume of "F-700" articles is invalid and irrelevant. I think these are false invalid arguments and work against building an encyclopedia.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


User:Springee re: "What's next, should we add the Columbine school shooting to the BMW 320 page?" This is an irrelevant argument, a slippery slope argument.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I used it as an example to illustrate the problem with inclusion. I found a number of articles talking about the Columbine murder's BMW yet no mention on the BMW 3-series pages. This certainly suggests that such notoriety isn't always commutative. (Editing note: I replied to you as 3 entries to preserve your nesting. Please feel free to group my replies if you think that is easier to read) Springee (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The "Notoriety" word was removed from the proposal. I think the slippery slope argument is invalid and irrelevant. Commmutative is invalid and irrelevant. The Wikipedia Columbine page does not mention the BMW, but if someone thinks it important to add I do not oppose the add and the add in the BMW page. I think the BMW was peripheral to the Columbine crime, the Ford truck was a main instrument in the bombing. The BMW does seem to be notorious now to car collectors. Also because facts do not exist in an article is invalid and irrelevant as justification to excluding facts in other articles, in an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a work in progress.
User:Springee, again thanks for your viewpoints.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
CuriousMind01, you're welcome and thank you for your courteous replies even in disagreement. Springee (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Did the use in the bombing affect the design of the truck?
  • Did the use in the bombing affect the design of the truck's successor?
  • Did the use in the bombing affect the sales of the truck?
  • Did the use in the bombing affect the marketing of the truck?
  • Did the use in the bombing affect the reputation of the truck?
  • Did the use in the bombing affect the way the truck was used afterwards?
  • Was this an intended use of the truck? Actually it was, if the use is counted as transferring a load to somewhere. The load wasn't a good thing but that's part of the bombing article, not the truck article.
  • Was the truck especially suited to the task (of transferring a load) compared to other trucks in that class?
  • Could he have accomplished his task with a similar size truck from another brand?
  • Was there any particular statement being made by the bomber in using that particular model of truck?

So, I see a truck, that could have been replaced by any other truck, being used as ... a truck! The use in the bombing was not affected by any particular aspect of the truck and did not affect the design, sales, marketing or reputation of the truck. I fail to see why this could be considered important to the truck article.  Stepho  talk  07:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Stepho-wrs. Wikipedia is more than a car catalog, WP includes uses, the fact the F-700 was used in the bombing I think makes the the fact important to state.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This sort of notoriety is not commutative. The choice of truck had no influence on the bombing. Any generic truck would have done. Nor did the bombing affect the truck afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The fact the F-700 was used in the bombing I think makes the the fact important to state. The word "notoriety" was removed from the proposal.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? Outside a truck-length radius, absolutely nothing in the world would have changed if he'd used a Chevy. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Andy Dingley, "nothing in the world would have changed" is irrelevant to the fact. If a Chevy truck had been used then the encyclopedia statement would be "A Chevy xyz" truck was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing" in the Chevy Truck xyz article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Andy, what about the use of unique codes stamped on the keys? Other makes -- Volvo, Isuzu? -- avoid this potential security risk. You can cut a working key if you know the number. But when they found the dropped key, it helped prove the case against the bomber. Similarly, the practice of stamping serial numbers on the axle helped catch the bomber. Are you saying you know that every possible truck had exactly these same unique codes stamped on the key and the parts in this way? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Dennis Bratland, Your explanatory note above,seems like good additional information to add to the article text.


  • Support: It seems like when the use of a commercial object in a famous bombing is mentioned by name in many reliable sources that's an indication that it deserves mention. Otherwise how do we decide what to put into the article? If we ranked the most noted things about this vehicle, excluding enthusiast publications, this bombing is undoubtedly among the most reported aspects. Felsic2 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Felsic2, the truck was a 1993 truck. The first sentence of the article clearly states the scope of the article is the MY2000 and later trucks. Please explain how a 1993 truck falls into the scope of that article. Springee (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Similar addition of material to the Chevy Caprice article[edit]

A similar addition of a car used in a crime was added to the Chevy Caprice article as a new section [[8]]. It appears that we have to address the question of when such material constitutes due weight. For the record I oppose the material on the Caprice article. Springee (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree the text added belongs in Wikipedia, WP is more than a car catalog, and with WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTCENSORED and the text is not Trivia and has due weight, especially in an encyclopedia.18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)CuriousMind01 (talk)
Preserve says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. ". In this case the problem is not how the material is presented but should it exist in that article at all (ie WEIGHT). I don't see how it can be fixed so removal is the correct option. Notcensored doesn't help either. Remember the information does exist on Wikipedia. Notcensored also says the material will be removed if "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies ". NPOV, ie WEIGHT is one of those policies. I think at this point we need to get more outside views on this subject. I mean consider that the F-700 discussion is currently 3:3 for:against. That means no consensus for addition which WP:ONUS says means we don't make the change. Dennis's accusations of bad faith towards me make it hard to have a discussion on the mater. Springee (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Springee, I have opposite opinions and opposite interpretations than you, the weight exists, is valuable, removing the text from this article is censoring the article, the text is within WP Policies.CuriousMind01 (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Non-inclusion is not censorship. There could be any number of legitimate reasons why something is not included in a particular article. Also, if the vehicles used are mentioned in the articles for the events, but not the vehicle articles, they're not censored because the info is still available. Be careful throwing WP:NOTCENSORED around in inclusion/exclusion arguments. --Vossanova o< 17:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Vossanova. I am careful. The info may exists in other articles, but if the info is being excluded from an article for not a legitimate reason in an article, ex: a single person's opinion, I can consider the exclusion censorship in an article. We may have different opinions. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is just an opinion that the reason is not legitimate. Please note that we aren't dealing with one person objecting. The current majority of people who have weighted I'm don't support your opinion on the subject. Springee (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Springee, Whatever the final majority supports, I accept. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
CuriousMind, you said "the info is being excluded from an article for not a legitimate reason". From my viewpoint, I could equally say that you are trying to include info for a not legitimate reason. Instead of saying "not legitimate reason" both sides should be saying "for reasons that I don't agree with". Then we can have an intelligent discussion about why our reasons differ.  Stepho  talk  01:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Stepho-wrs, good point thanks for the advice.

Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles[edit]

This RFC covers two automotive articles with similar disputed material. Please comment on either or both additions (please indicate an article if comments don't apply to both).

The specific addition to the Ford F-650 intro section page is below [[9]]:

A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The truck's key code and axle serial number became significant evidence in the trial of Timothy McVeigh.

The specific addition to the Chevrolet Caprice page as a section titled Famous Owners is below [[10]]:

The Beltway sniper attacks used a 1990 blue Caprice as a mobile snipers' nest. The car had been modified with a special opening for the rifle to shoot out the back of the trunk, and the back seat had been altered to allow entry to the trunk from within the passenger compartment. The snipers were abducted by the FBI while they slept in it. The events inspired a 2013 motion picture, Blue Caprice.

Springee (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Explanation Note: The text beginning "A 1993 Ford F-700" was written in the Ford F-650 article because a search on Ford F-700 directed to the Ford F-650 article at the time of writing, a redirect was changed Sept 6 to Ford F-700 during the discussion without notice on this project page or the Ford F-650 article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Notifications: Talk:Oklahoma City bombing ‎ , Talk:Beltway sniper attacks , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography ‎ , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States History , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death ‎ , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands , Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Felsic2 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Query Is the make and model number of the vehicle in each case of special and notable significance to the reader? If it has special significance, more than mere mention in sources, then it may be useful information. If not (that is, the make and model of the vehicle is of no special significance at all, and removal of the make and model would in no way harm readers) then it should not be included. Consider a mass murderer who left a "Brand X" soda can at a murder scene (that is - the brand of soda was noted, but of no significance to the crime or solution of the crime in any material way) would you expect to see a reference to "Brand X" in an article on that person? I suggest this be the actual basis for determination on a case by case basis, rather than setting an "all or none" rule here. Collect (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
In both cases it could be. In the case of the F-700 truck, the rental company (frequently) and the manufacture (semi-frequently) are mentioned as details. Part serial numbers from the truck were used after the blast to back to a VIN and then to the specific truck rental. So the mention is more than just "a bottle of Coke was found in the dead man's hand" but wasn't something that was unique to the Ford truck. In the case of the Caprice the large size of the car's truck was used by the shooters. More articles talked about the way the shooters were firing through a whole cut in the trunk. Springee (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Collect (talkcontribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
Note: Dennis Bartland should have signed the above comment since he was the "An editor" in question [[11]] Springee (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment In these cases there are usually 2 articles under discussion. To make it concrete, I will use the Ford F-700 (F-650?) used in the Oklahoma City bombing. For the bombing, the truck was an essential tool used in the bombing. It could have been substituted with another truck but it was still a major part of the bombing. It affected the bombing, therefore it should be mentioned in the bombing article. However, the truck's design, marketing, sales, reputation and notoriety have not been changed due to the bombing. The bombing incident did not affect the truck, therefore the bombing should not be mentioned in the truck article. For the bombing article it is an essential piece of information. In the truck article it is WP:TRIVIA along the lines of movie appearances and ownership by famous people.  Stepho  talk  23:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Stepho-wrs, I think the use of the truck in the bombing is an important use of the truck, not a Trivia use. Wikipedia is more than a car catalog and important use is to be included in the truck article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment #2 I consider the text in the 2 vehicle articles the same type of encyclopedia fact statements, of use, as in the examples in the 3 articles below. I think automobile articles should be also be encyclopedic likewise and include statements of use.
1. Ammonium nitrate ... :::Ammonium nitrate-based explosives were used in the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 and 2011 Delhi bombings, the 2013 Hyderabad blasts, and the 2011 bombing in Oslo.
2. SIG MCX...A SIG MCX was used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.
3. Pressure Cooker...The appliance has been adapted as a crude type of bomb, which has been used in terrorist attacks.
2006 Mumbai train bombings, 2010 Stockholm bombings (failed to explode), 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt (failed to explode), 2013 Boston Marathon bombings CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose F-650 addition on several grounds. First, the proposed material is WP:OFFTOPIC. The F-650 article discusses the model year 2000 and later medium duty Ford trucks developed in collaboration with Navistar. This scope is made clear in the intro paragraph as well as in the content of the body. The proposed addition refers to a 1993 truck which is not part of the subject of this topic. Thus even if consensus supports adding the material to the article that covers the F-700 trucks, this isn't the correct place.
I also would oppose adding the material to an article that talks about the 1993 F-700 (assuming similar detail to the material in the F-650 article) on the grounds of insufficient WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP. The material in question was added to the article lead, not the end of the body suggesting that it would be discussed in greater detail in the body and that it was considered highly significant to the topic. Weight says we should include material in proportion to it's prominence in coverage of the topic. Discussions of the F-700 used in the bombing seem limited to articles that focus on the crime, not the Ford truck. Thus it is appropriate to include the Ford truck in the Oklahoma City bombing article (and it is) but there is simply no weight in RSs supporting inclusion in an article about Ford's medium duty trucks (or the 1993 generation of the trucks). BALASP notes that, "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." The use of a rented truck to carry a bomb seems to be an isolated event with no long term impact on the design, marketing, sales, reputation etc of the Ford medium duty trucks. As another editor said, notoriety is not communicative. Details of the Ford truck were used to help break the bombing case. It hasn't been shown the bombing had any impact on Ford products.
  • Oppose Caprice addition on grounds of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP. The Caprice article spans several generations of the car and spans over 50 years of history. The coverage of the use of the Caprice in the beltway shootings is very small in comparison to the total volume of material and articles discussing the Caprice as a car/product. Again BALASP should be considered. The material was added as a "list" of notable owners featuring only one entry, the beltway shooters. The list of owners would fall under WP:Trivia as a random fact list. That an entire section was created to include information about the crime is a serious BALASP issue given the long history of the Caprice name plate over 50 years. In this case it could be argued that the specific attributes of the Caprice's trunk made it a more suitable car for the crime but that would be a stretch for inclusion. At best the crime's article page could be linked via the "Also see" links. Even that seems questionable. Springee (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Springee In summary, we have opposite opinions on interpretations.
1. The reason the use of the F-700 bombing is in the F-650 article is the F-700 search directed to the F-650 article at the time of writing. The redirect was changed to the F-700 article without notice, mid-discussion. The F-700 bombing use is On Topic for the F-700 article.
2. The weight/importance of the use of the truck and Chevy Caprice in historical events I consider are sufficient to include in the articles, and your WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP arguments are not valid.
3 I consider the Not commutative argument is irrelevant and invalid. The sources reporting the facts are sufficient to include the facts in the articles.
4. Wikipedia is more than a car catalog and important uses are to be included in articles. The use not affecting design is irrelevant in these two incidents. The fact the 2 vehicles were used in the incidents is what I consider is important to note in the articles.
4 Don't censor articles. I personally hate that the incidents and deaths happened, but think the incidents should be stated in the articles and the use of the vehicles in the incidents not be censored in the articles.
5. Not Trivia. Considering the use of the vehicles in the 2 incidents and deaths is Trivia, like a movie start using a vehicle at a movie premier is not a valid argument to me.
5 I think a See also is not sufficient to give readers the reason to see also; statements like "A Ford F-700 was used in the Oklahoma City bombing" and "A Chevy Caprice was used in the Beltway Sniper attacks" are adequate, if the info now in the articles is in the linked articles. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
CuriousMind01, perhaps this is a pet peeve, but please do not claim "censorship". Policy WP:NOTCENSORED says it is inappropriate to remove content solely because some people find it offensive for sexual, religious, or similar reasons. It is not "censorship" for someone to argue that the content does not belong in the article for other reasons. Many 9/11 hijackers wore khakis. We don't mention 9/11 in the khakis article. Alsee (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Alsee thank you for your viewpoint and explanation and education. Also separately, I understand your 9/11 highjackers khaki analogy for a khaki article, but I don't think the analogy applies here, the khakis were peripheral to the hijacking, the cars were instruments in the crimes. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


User:Eddaido, the reason the vehicles were chosen by the perpetrators, is not stated in the articles. I think statements like "A Ford F-700 was used in the Oklahoma City bombing" and "A Chevy Caprice was used in the Beltway Sniper attacks" are adequate, if all the relevant information now in the F-650 article and Chevy Caprice article is moved or stated in the 2 target linked articles, if both authors agree.CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both as per the spirit of WP:CARTRIVIA. This guideline states when dealing with cases of vehicle notoriety that "references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show—such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show." OSX (talkcontributions) 08:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
User:OSX, I don't think WP:CARTRIVIA applies, WP:CARTRIVIA has no mention of notoriety and there is no notoriety mention in the text in discussion. WP:CARTRIVIA refers to minor uses like a celebrity rode in a car. The use of the vehicles in Oklahoma bombing and Sniper attacks are more serious and not trivial to me, the Ford F-700 key and axle id were used to identify the bomber, and the F-700 was used in the bombing. the Chevy was modified to be a sniper car and kill people, two acts more serious than a celebrity appearance.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, hence why I said "as per the spirit of WP:CARTRIVIA". OSX (talkcontributions) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
We have different opinions of what is Trivia. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both, both items are important uses of the vehicles, and have sufficient weight, and the text should be included. Wikipedia is more than a car catalog, and includes important information about uses of a subject, here, the 2 vehicles, and does not censor information in articles.
I think the F-650 text should be moved to the F-700 article, now that the F-700 search is changed as originally existing when the text was written, to result in the F-700 article.
I do not think a "see also" by itself is adequate because "see also" does not provide enough information to a written to explain why the reader should see another article. More text is needed.
I think a phrase like: "A Ford F-700 was used in the Oklahoma City bombing" and "A Chevy Caprice was used in the Beltway Sniper attacks" is adequate if all the information in the F-650 article and Chevy Caprice article is moved or stated in the 2 target linked articles, if both authors agree. CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both per reasons given by CuriousMind01 above, and more. The comparison of a major terrorist attack with a name drop in a Top Gear episode is bizarre.

    The most critical issue is Editing policy. The bulk of Springee's activity on Wikipedia for the last several months has consisted of violating the editing policy in numerous ways, including STONEWALLing and CANVASSing. This RFC is a good example of his inability to drop the stick. How many threads on this dispute has Springee started? Five? Seven? I lost count. Two on this Project Talk page alone. Is he going to keep starting one thread after another until he gets the outcome he wants? WP:FORUMSHOP is yet another policy this campaign has violated.

    What is so harmful about this stonewalling campaign is that it prevents building an encyclopedia. Springee is insisting that every stub, every C- grade article, be perfect at all times. Every addition, even those copiously cited and totally undisputed, must also meet the highest, strictest standards of due weight and topic relevance. Guidelines like WP:CARTRIVIA (terrorism is not trivia, btw) exist to help us understand what the best car articles would look like. They are relevant once an article has been fully expanded, and is ready to be submitted for WP:GA or WP:FA status. If this were a GA nomination and somebody said the bombing mention wasn't quite what we expct to see in our best content, perhaps that would be a good point, and perhaps it would be a worthwhile discussion to have.

    But going to war, stonewalling, beating a dead horse, forum shopping and canvassing to win a battle (not a BATTLEGROUND btw) for the sake of deleting mention of a cited, undisputed fact is disruptive editing

    WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV (which is where UNDUE and BALASP derive), both explicitly tell us that we do not dump good content overboard so easily. The only exceptions are listed at WP:CANTFIX, none of which apply here. Not remotely. Policy says we keep it until the article, or the article where the content ultimately belongs, are really in good shape. It would be fine if all Springee wanted to do was to tag the content with a perfectly good maintenance tag: [undue weight? ]. Boom! Problem solved, let's work on something that matters. We're wasting all this time because one editor isn't satisfied with a maintenance tag. He wants absolute eradication of anything that he objects too, rejecting every compromise that several editors have offered. What Springee really wants is to repeal the Editing policy, but that'll never happen, so he is Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

    These Ford truck and Chevy Caprice articles are not very important, and they get little traffic. But we need to put a stop to this nonsense that articles about cars must be held to the same standards as WP:BLPs. I realize what I'm saying means this really needs to go to AN/I for a topic ban or editing block. I keep hoping we can put a stop to this before it comes to that. It's too bad that such minor details in articles that cry out so many other more important improvements have been inflated into something to lose your editing privileges over. Please get some perspective, and a sense of proportion, everyone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

PRESERVE states we should keep the information if it would be part of a good article on the subject. It does not say keep information which wouldn't be part of a good article. That is if NPOV says the material doesn't belong in the article it should be removed. Springee (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
And what does WP:BLUDGEON say?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
We seem to have different subjective interpretations of the WP policies, which are subjective general principles. I think the info should stay in each article because the info is an important use of each vehicle, and important use belongs in an encyclopedia. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both - Unless the make and model of an automobile was an essential component of a notable event (e.g. if the design included some unique structural feature without which the crimes in question would have been substantially different) then those details are not noteworthy. EllenCT (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:EllenCT, I think the fact the vehicles were used in the notable events, the 2 crimes, is important and noteworthy to mention in the articles, (a bombing killing 168 people, and the sniper attacks lasting 3 weeks with 10 people killed, also creating fear in the area for 3 weeks). I think limiting vehicle article facts to only incidents where "the make and model of an automobile was an essential component" is unnecessary and incorrectly restrictive for an encyclopedia, and is not within any Wikipedia guidelines that I can find.
Also per the text: "The truck's key code and axle serial number became significant evidence in the trial of Timothy McVeigh." Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not relevant in the article about the truck. Boivie (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Boivie, why do you think use of the vehicles is not relevant in the articles? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, more than a car catalog, and important uses (good & bad) are included in Wikipedia articles.Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Or take a look at the first WP:Featured Article on the list, to see how these policies are actually applied. You will see facts that don't meet this strict standard of relevance or weight. Look at the next one, and the next one, or any random FA. Wikipedia's best content doesn't apply these rules in the tortured, onerous way that is being proposed for these car articles. The normal way that humans talk about any subject includes background details and connections outside the subject, and scrubbing such mentions looks weird and stilted, calling attention to the writer and the writing rather than the subject. But we're stuck on this idea that because it's a car we treat it differently. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:CuriousMind01, other users have written lots of good arguments here above. Ford produced thousands of trucks of this model, and only one of them were used in the bombing. And, as written before, this didn't affect the truck's design, marketing, sales, reputation or notoriety in any way. That specific truck was used like any other truck; for transporting stuff. What happened with that stuff afterwards is relevant for Wikipedia, but not in the context of the truck model. Boivie (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Boivie, "Good arguments" is subjective, Me, I have not read a good argument yet, that justifies omitting the use of the truck in the encyclopedia article. I think the opposite. The use of the F-700 in the Oklahoma bombing and it's key# and axel# being evidence to find and convict the bomber are relevant facts worth adding to the truck model article. Thank you for your explanation, CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both The model of vehicle should be mentioned in the event article. The event should only be mentioned in the vehicle article if there is some commutative relationship: was the event relevant to the vehicle? Was the event influenced by the type of vehicle? Is the vehicle so obscure that any incident involving that model is a substantial part of the model's history (James Dean's Porsche). Otherwise, and I'm not seeing it in either case here, an event which needed "an anonymous light truck" or "an equally anonymous big car" does not become relevant to those truck or car models. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this idea of commutative relationship is invalid and irrelevant. I have never read it anyplace except in this auto discussion. In general I found vehicle articles, or chemical articles, or gun articles, deliberately do not include anything about bad uses, only good uses, or no uses, and can bias building an encyclopedia, omitting important facts.

If the sources state the make and model used in the Oklahoma bombing and sniper attacks, I think that is adequate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, more than a car catalog and the facts belong in the vehicle articles. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support both. In the case of the Caprice, the brand, color, and model year of the car appeared in numerous news articles about the shootings. The car was an integral part of the shootings, specially modified to use as a snipers nest, not just a vehicle used to drive to the scene of the crime. A film about the shootings was titled, Blue Caprice, certainly the greatest cultural impact the car has ever had. More generally, articles should include interesting and important details about the subjects. By comparison, many of the details in the article are extremely mundane and trivial. Auto articles in general are boring listings of statistics like dimensions and sales figures. Material like this, I believe, is of interest to the average reader. Topics should not be "walled gardens" that pretend the products they describe don't exist in the real world. Some editors here are referencing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, aka WP:TRIVIA. That manual of style guideline says nothing about excluding information. It only concerns where in an article the material should go. Those editors are evidently uninformed about what they're citing. Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. WP:TRIVIA is quite clear: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." Stepho-wrs and Springee are incorrect in citing that as having any relevance to this RfC at all.

    Trivia's cousin, "In popular culture" content, is primarily a problem when it is not well-sourced. "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not." When you have a 3rd party source that tells us why the connection matters, it's worth including. We want to avoid lists of appearances or shout outs where the only source is the primary work, a movie or TV show or whatever, with no secondary source asserting that it mattered in some way.

    Reliable sources saying why the truck and the Caprice were important have been cited multiple times, but for some reason those reason aren't even being refuted, just ignored as if they didn't exist.

    The WP:CARTRIVIA advice page's stuff about strictly limited to influence on sales, design, blah blah, are trumped by policy and guidelines. Influencing the car or truck is one route to inclusion, but it's not the only route. The guidelines say secondary sources can give us other reasons why it matters. Clues that led to the arrest of McVeih, and evidence that led to his conviction, obviously matter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see a consensus for the CARTRIVIA section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. In any case, it's an advice page which is the equivalent of a personal essay, not a guideline. Felsic2 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Participants might like to consider the last paragraph in this item. Eddaido (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That I think is a harder case to call (like OJ and the Ford Bronco) because I think we can argue that the association with Bonnie and Clyde is something that people frequently associate with the car. As an example I just did a news article search (standard search resulted in a flood of sale listings) and the second article (Autoweek) was right up front with the association (search terms, "1934 Ford V8 coupe", second result [[12]]). Thus one can make a reasonable argument for WEIGHT. That said, it's also possible that that material should be removed per WP:CARTRIVIA. I can't recall the exact essay but there is one related to WP:OSE which notes that Wikipedia is written by many people over a long period of time and thus isn't always consistent. We shouldn't assume other articles are correct when we assume to use them as precedent. Springee (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Just the same, consider Brough Superior, Kawasaki GPZ900R, and Honda CB77. The thing with all of these is somebody will say other stuff exists. I prefer to look to the examples of Featured Articles because we know that those who wrote and evaluated them are quite diligent about policy and guidelines. Their interpretation these rules is strong evidence of what the community standards really are. So consider Pioneer Zephyr#Use in film, or Royal Blue (train)'s shoutouts to FDR, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip. Also: SS Edmund Fitzgerald#Musical and theater tributes, or SS Kroonland#Notable passengers. 7 World Trade Center would delete mention of the Boesky insider-trading scandal by the standard that is being claimed to exist here. I could go on listing many more FAs like these. There is ample evidence that this tortured, restrictive reading of the undue weight policy and total misreading of the trivia guidelines is not shared by the larger Wikipedia community. Manual of Style/Trivia sections does not mean what WP:CARTRIVIA thinks it means. WP:CARTRIVIA's claim that it's "widely accepted" is demonstrably false. A far different standard is applied by the extremely thorough featured article process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You initiated an RfC to have WP:CARTRIVIA changed/removed. It wasn't changed as a result of your RFC. Regardless we don't have to rely on cartrivia. WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP along with WP:CONSENSUS are sufficient. With respect to your examples, well the Brough Superior isn't a good example. A quick web search and most first page links mention TE Lawrence. The reborn company lists Lawrence as a famous owner so it has impacted marketing. Springee (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages: "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and a search shows that you worked rather hard to get people to look at the RfC, posted quite a few notifications and in the end nothing changed. You could take your case to WP:NPOVN. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody cares what I did or didn't do. All that matters is that policy and guidelines overrule that advice page. Your opinion that WP:TRIVIA says the exact opposite of what it really says is merely your opinion, and it's an opinion that's quite wrong. The WP:CONSENSUS policy says your wrong opinions, and the opinions of any others that are equally wrong, don't count. "Unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

Nobody has to bend to obey an essay that is no better than one editor saying "I like it this way." See WP:POLICIES: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think the consensus is wrong I would suggest WP:NPOVN or perhaps WP:RFAR. Springee (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No, no such thing is necessary. Essays that contradict policies and guidelines can, and should, simply be ignored, as you can easily read in the policies I already quoted. Nobody has to go on some long dispute resolution odyssey to ignore a meaningless essay. The closing admin is supposed to disregard !votes that contradict policies and guidelines, as explained, again, in WP:Consensus. Bludgeon the process all you want, the facts don't change. If you or others want WP:CARTRIVIA to be taken seriously, the burden is on you to propose raising it's status. At which time you'll be told it needs to be brought in line with existing policies and guidelines. As you pointed out, I tried to bring it into accord with the broader community's consensus, and a couple editors objected, so here we are, erroneously quoting an essay that carries zero weight. A move request to put WP:WPAC into the user namepace would likely succeed, though I don't see the need, since we all know we can ignore it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Well all you have to do is stop bludgeoning the process and convince people that the WP:NPOV (ie the WEIGHT and BALASP issues) and/or WP:CONSENSUS policies aren't being followed. Bludgeoning this discussion, accusing others of bad faith etc and failing to FOC isn't going to do it. Springee (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
RE: WEIGHT. If there are a hundred mainstream general interest magazines or newspapers which mention the involvement of a vehicle in an historic event, then NPOV/WEIGHT would seem to argue for inclusion. To take the example of Caprice, much of the material in that article is sourced to obscure sources. Isn't it important to include the information that is the most widely reported? Felsic2 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Both sides have listed their views, refuted the opposite views, repeated themselves, become entrenched and started name calling. I see little hope in either side changing their view or introducing new points. At this point we either:

  1. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. Which means we return the articles to their previous state - in the case of the F-650 article we remove the bombing information and in the Caprice article we remove the Beltway information. Or
  2. We call in the administrators to make a ruling and we all live by that ruling. WP:CONTENTDISPUTE covers this.  Stepho  talk  04:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Stepho-wrs, I think these requests normally run a month to allow editors time to submit comments, I recommend we allow the request to run a month before proceeding to your recommendations. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
As CuriousMind01 says above, RFCs usually run a month, then an admin or involved editor applies a consensus close. Usually the outcome is in line with the majority, but Policy based arguments carry more weight and other factors may apply. Alsee (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both per WP:WEIGHT. They are both too distantly connected to be expected or relevant content for the typical reader of the vehicle articles. Mention of the vehicles is a significant factor commonly discussed in relation to the incidents, but the incidents are almost never discussed or significant in discussion of the vehicles. Alsee (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Alsee I understand the WP:WEIGHT differently. The 2 vehicles were direct instruments used to commit the crimes so I think there is a direct connection in the vehicle articles to note the vehicle were used in a crime, as stated by sources. I think vehicle articles in books, magazines, jornals et al, in my experience tend not to report crimes or only state good use, their mission is not be be an encyclopedia. NYTimes1 is one of the few articles I know that covers crimes.
I think an encyclopedia's mission is to be more than a vehicle catalog or blog, and include uses. To use a good analogy you made above. If the criminals wore khakis to commit the crimes, that would not be relevant to the khaki article, as the khakis were peripheral, but because the vehicles were instruments used to commit the crime, is worth noting in the vehicle articles, similar to the 3 Wikipedia examples I noted above in Comment2. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both I think the articles about the vehicles should each include a brief mention of their use in the respective crimes. The vehicles were essential to the perpetration of the crimes. Other vehicles could have been used, but these were the ones that actually were; I regard that information as encyclopedic, not trivial. There is some precedent, as seen in the article (in its current version): Renault Midlum. (That article gives a wrong reference for stating the vehicle's use, but other RS do contain the information.) DonFB (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless there was some kind of lasting effect, this is undue emphasis on trivia. For example, if sales change dramatically following the use of a vehicle in a crime (and we have a source that explicitly says this), then it should be mentioned. If all we have is that the vehicle was used, then no. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate I think the lasting effect is the historical fact the vehicles were used in the 2 crimes and the deaths, which I do not consider trivia. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Of course not. Articles that cover vehicles should cover the vehicles themselves, not contain famous vehicles such as those used in Christian terrorism -- or any other famous incident. Stay focused on what the article covers, it's not a good idea to divert in to irrelevant subjects. Damotclese (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    Damotclese Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and many articles cover uses, which I think WP should and does in many articles. WP is not just a car catalog or blog. I think uses are relevant, and stating uses is relevant. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    Damotclese, how much of DeLorean DMC-12 would you blank, then? There's a whole section on "special" ones, a list of five that are on display in a museum, which car (complete with VINs) were driven in which racetrack incidents, who bought which vehicle in which marketing stunt, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. It's not relevant to the history of the Caprice that the sniper used it - he could have used any car. Same appears to go for the Ford. I'd have a harder time opposing White Ford Bronco, though... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
User SarekOfVulcan I think the fact that the Ford and Caprice were used in the 2 events is important to state in an encyclopedia article about the vehicles, because an encyclopedia is more than a vehicle blog or catalog.Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. To take the general case, I agree with Sarek's comment above that if the vehicle itself is inseparable with common knowledge of the crime (like the White Ford Bronco from OJ Simpson), then it should be included (along the same lines that we would likely note that the DeLorean is a pop culture icon due to Back to the Future or the 1969 Dodge Charger with the Dukes of Hazzard) Or if there was specifically unique feature of the vehicle that was a significant part of the crime, that might be worth including. But in general, if a vehicle is used in a crime but otherwise in an unremarkable way, mentioning this shouldn't be on the vehicle page. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • In the case of the Blue Caprice, it was so central to the shootings that a movie about the event is named for the car. The car was specially modofied for use as a sniper's nest. I'm not sure that valuing fictional TV shows over real-life historical events is the best way to write a serious encyclopedia. Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Someone taking a stock car and modifying it for a crime but otherwise not using any of the other as-designed aspects doesn't make the car's make and model any way unique to the crime. I'm looking at not so much if the car was used or not, but if the fact that it was used was something that is well-ingrained in the public knowledge. Eg, like OJ's white Bronco. This might then make the Caprice aspect reasonable given that it was named as a movie, though that still only has passing inference to the actual shootings. It was just a car, there was nothing "special" about its connection in the crimes beyond a means of transportation and any other type of car could have been used. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Masem I think the fact that the Ford and Caprice were used in the 2 events, as a main tool/instrument of the crime crime is important to state in an encyclopedia article about the vehicles, because an encyclopedia is more than a vehicle blog or catalog. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
CM01, you have mentioned this point many times but I do not think it holds water. In both case the vehicles were definitely a tool in the crime, so the vehicle is related to the crime and should be mentioned on the crime article. But the vehicles could have been easily substituted by other vehicles in the same class and the reputation of the vehicle was not changed. This is why we talk about WP:WEIGHT. The vehicle affected the crime but the crime did not affect the vehicle. I'm sure that if I searched hard enough I could find a crime committed with almost any mass produced vehicle you care to mention but we deliberately avoid going down this path. Saying that WP is more than a blog or vehicle catalogue allows the articles to be filled up with references to famous owners, movie appearances, etc - none of which is useful to the average person. Or to put it another way, if somebody own the same vehicle would a significant number of acquaintances ask "Hey, is that the same type of vehicle that was involved in the bombing?" We try to keep the articles focused on the vehicle itself.  Stepho  talk  06:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
In Ford Torino, we have this sentence: "The 1972 Ford Gran Torino Sport SportsRoof was featured in the movie Gran Torino, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood." If we're consistent, should we delete that too? Felsic2 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, per CARTRIVIA it should be. It is also likely it should be due to a reasonable reading of the relevant parts of NPOV. Springee (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
That is a bit of a self serving answer. The Project Firearms page specifically states that mentions of crimes should only be included in limited cases [[13]] and you have personally be involved in several such debates (in fact that is likely why you added the material to the Caprice article). The movie you cite had a very limited release and went by two different names depending on region. Other movies have been named for cars but that doesn't mean the movie makes it to the car's article. Springee (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 Stepho  I think "the reputation of the vehicle was not changed." "The vehicle affected the crime but the crime did not affect the vehicle." are not relevant to the fact the vehicles were the tools used in 2 major crimes.
"I could find a crime committed with almost any mass produced vehicle you care to mention but we deliberately avoid going down this path." I am not stating all crimes be stated, just these 2 major crimes, or any major crime.
""Saying that WP is more than a blog or vehicle catalogue allows the articles to be filled up with references to famous owners, movie appearances," I don't think that is true, only major uses are in an encyclopedia. I don't think it is an all or nothing situation, a slippery slope argument is not valide.
" We try to keep the articles focused on the vehicle itself." Who is we? I don't find any criteria written? No one owns the articles. I think that focus is invalid for an encyclopedia. WP is not a blog or car catalog, and important uses are included for vehicles, chemicals, pressure cookers, et al. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Oppose both. Nothing special about either vehicle is evident in the cited sources for the two crimes. Neither vehicle, when mentioned, causes one to think of the crime. On the other hand, if someone says, "White Ford Bronco", then only one incident comes to mind, about OJ. That is different. I oppose mention of crimes in firearms articles, too, except in very unusual circumstances, such as the Carcano rifle in the JFK assassination, or the details of the pistol in the Columbine shooting, and similar. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta I think your statements are not valid or consistent for an encyclopedia and are subjective (to which you are entitled). I think important uses good/bad are included in an encyclopedia. Ex: If the pistol used in Columbine is noted in the pistol article, than the F-700 vehicle used in the largest mass domestic terror incident is equally important to note in the vehicle article. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both. The notoriety must go both ways for an inclusion. Mention a Carcano rifle, and one immediately thinks of the JFK assassination. Mention a White Ford Bronco, and OJ comes to mind. Mention a non-descript Ford truck or a Caprice, and no connection is tacitly assumed to any event or crime. Advocating inclusion of what is, at best, trivia, with no obvious connection to a crime, is not how an encyclopedia works. Would you also advocate inserting criminal usages into the Ford Pinto, Mazda pickup, and Toyota Tundra pickup articles for the same reasons, too? No. The reason is that they have not been conflated with the crimes committed when they were being driven, and the notoriety is not bi-directional. (I just happen to know of major crimes committed by individuals that were coincidentally driving these particular vehicles.) The same is true for Ford trucks and Caprice cars. There is not a need to clutter Wikipedia with anti-firearm criminality additions, nor of then inserting criminality additions on automobiles and trucks articles, in the hopes of then justifying the insertion of anti-gun propaganda into just firearm articles by justifying that a particular Ford truck or a Chevrolet Caprice article also mentioned a criminal use. Very disruptive editing, at the very worst. Naive thinking, at the very best. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta There is no mention of notoriety in the text wording. The vehicles were the major tools used to commit the crimes. Encyclopedias include facts of important use, good and bad use. The statements are not anti firearm additions, nor building anti firearm propaganda, which you seem to think. They are neutral important historical facts of usage, not clutter, not disruptive editing, not naive, it is facts in an encyclopedia. We have different opinions. Thank you,
  • Oppose both, as WP:TRIVIA. As mentioned numerous times above, if something about the particular model made it an important for the attack - include it. Otherwise, there is nothing notable that a vehicle of this specific model happened to be available to the perpetrators of this crime. WarKosign 06:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign I think the facts the 2 vehicles were the important tools used in 2 major crimes is what makes the facts important to include in the 2 articles. I think WP:Trivia is being misunderstood and does not state exclude facts. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@CuriousMind01: Was it important that the vehicles used were of these particular models ? Would it affect the planning or outcome if any other model was used? If the answer is no, then it a trivia item. WarKosign 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign That is is your opinion, and your interpretation of trivia, which I think are irrelevant criteria for an encyclopedia. You ask speculation questions, not history questions. How would anyone know if changing things in the past, would affect the outcome? What does it matter? Was the F-700 used in the largest domestic terror incident, as a fact yes. Is that fact important, I think yes. Do important facts belong in an encyclopedia, I think yes. Similar to the use of pressure cookers, guns and chemicals used in major crimes which are in WP articles.
As an example, as someone wrote above, a ($19.95) Carcano rifle was used to kill JFK. Was it important the model used was a Carcano in particular, would the planning and outcome be any different if another model was used? Does anyone know? no, the questions are speculation questions and irrelevant.
Disregarding the speculation questions, Is the fact a Carcano rifle was used to kill JFK important, and to be in an encyclopedia? Is the fact in WP? Yes. I think the same importance principle applies for actual vehicle use in major crimes also.
Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No need to speculate. Unless there is something unique about the model that was essential, any other car would've serve the exactly same purpose. With the rifle it is also a trivial bit of information, perhaps a bit less so because assassination of US presidents are less common than acts of terror, and rifle's main purpose is to kill. WarKosign 19:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's peevish and arbitrary to set an imaginary bar so high as that you can't so much as mention an event unless something about the car was unique or essential. TE Lawrence could have loved any other motorcycle, and he could have died on any other motorcycle, but in fact, it was the Brough Superior because that bike had certain characteristics. Not unique or essential ones -- you could have substituted something -- but not absolutely any bike. The Hondells and the Beach Boys could have sung about some other bike besides the Honda Super Cub, but not any bike at all. The Super Cub was one of several bikes that could have filled this role. But there was nothing unique or essential about it. If you were to apply this incredibly strict standard to our WP:FA articles, you'd be deleting several bits of "trivia" from every one of them. Well-written articles have a little trivia in them. Content policy doesn't say 'no trivia allowed'. The the MOS proscribes trivia and pop culture sections, but not the content itself. Only the practice of segregating it in a section, much like controversy sections are poor style. We've got to stop misreading the MOS this way.

The only reason for having this tortuously high standard for keeping so-called "trivia" out of articles is if there were some harm caused by so-called trivia. BLPs can cause harm, so the BLP policy exists to prevent such harm. But this is not about BLPs, and so we don't have a need to arbitrarily invent a strict rule like "must be unique and essential" before any so-called "trivia" is so much as mentioned.

Having editors go out of their way to patrol articles to root out so-called "trivia" based on this misreading of the MOS and misreading of editing and content policy is harmful to Wikipedia. Leave it in, let the article grow, mature and be polished. If or when it reaches a late stage and is a GA or FA candidate, then a discussion of whether it is a little more perfect or a little less perfect if it mentions one of these crimes can be had. But censoring a particular category of facts across many articles when they are at the Stub or C stage is against editing policy and several other policies. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is WEIGHT and the like still apply. You have used Brough Superior as an example but it's not a good example. The current manufacture advertises that Lawrence road one of their bikes (or at least of the original company). A quick search for articles on the bike turns up many that mention the TEL connection. For that reason one can argue that Wikipedia should mention the connection because reliable sources ABOUT THE BIKE do as well. The same is true of several of the firearms examples offered. When 2 of 3 a firearms collector/enthusiast articles on the first page of a search for a particular gun mention a connection to a famous crime/criminal then it is reasonable to say the two are associated. What is not reasonable is assuming that the two are associated just because a reports of a crime note that the shooter's car was an X. Meeting the Pope might have had a big impact on say a mayor of Cincinnati. That doesn't mean the mayor had an impact on the Pope. Springee (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I wish you didn't feel you must reply to every single thing I post in this discussion. Couldn't somebody else have answered me, if I'm really so wrong? Or simply ignored me, if I'm that deluded as to what policy says? But no, you must beat this dead horse.

My argument in the above comment doesn't address W.E.I.G.H.T., all-powerful, all-knowing rule that apparently must be applied to every single sentence added to every single article on Wikipedia. I've already said what I think about WP:WEIGHT, and there isn't a need to rehash that after I've already done so more than once. I commented, on topic, on what WarKosign said. But now here you are. Again.

You have once again given us an example of disruptive editing in the form of WP:STONEWALLing: "Bad-faith negotiating" also known as the old bait and switch, or special pleading. I was addressing here in WarKosign's two specific hoops that so-called "trivia" must jump through: 1) be unique, 2) be essential. I provided two examples that were neither unique nor essential, and alluded to basically any FA you care to name.

Now you introduce abrand new rule specially invented for the case of Brough Superior: "Trivia [sic] is OK if the company's marketing department sticks it into an ad"!?! So the company marketers have a say in Wikipedia content? Why not just let paid editors write the article? Your made-up standard is silly for several reasons. Here's a couple:

  • Brough Superior was defunct for the first three years of the Wikipedia article's existence. So until 2008, there were no ads with TE Lawrence in them, and so you would have had Wikipedia not mention Lawrence's love of the marque.
  • The New Brough marketing department only chose to spotlight the positive in their postmortem celebrity endorsement. They don't advertise that the man was killed by a Brough. Hence, you would have us delete that fact, by this newest rule you pulled out of your ass five minutes ago. Similarly Honda's use of pop music about the Super Cub in their ads mentions only part of the story, what they think makes their company look good, not the more absurd aspects.
Both the Honda and Brough examples fail WP:CARTRIVIA, i.e., "strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle." We have zero data saying Lawrence or the Hondells affected the sales of these bikes. This "influenced the sales" thing is nonsense of course: who can say how many Broughs would have sold had Lawrence not liked it? It's the post hoc fallacy to assume the event made sales rise or fall.

Similarly, we will never really know if an event influenced a "tangible" aspect of a vehicle. We're never privy to every design and engineering decision. We only know after the vesicle goes on sale what the marketing department tells you the rationale for using 8" wheels or blue paint was. Maybe they're too embarrassed to admit they ran out of green so they are saying they painted the car blue as an homage to Picasso's blue period. Nobody can prove it isn't.

The reason I'm systematically rubbishing all these arbitrary rules, uniqueness, being essential, being used in marketing, supposedly affecting sales, and even being the purported reason for adding a rear spoiler to the Koenigsegg CCX, is that nobody has explained why such strict, arbitrary rules are necessary "because it's a car". Who cares if it's a car? What if the article is about a continent? Or an opera? Or a species of frog? If it's not a BLP, then there's no good reason to apply any special snowflake standard beyond content policy. WP:WPAC must be brought into compliance with policy and guidelines; the Automobile Project's use of an essay to deviate from those higher-order rules are null and void and should be ignored.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please FOC and drop the accusations of bad faith. Springee (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Same to you. FOC yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Name calling ceases immediately from both sides or we call the administrators in.  Stepho  talk  04:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign We have different opinions. I consider "Would history be different if "questions, speculation, and not relevant to use for an encyclopedia, I only consider the actual history facts. I consider the use of the 2 vehicles important to include in an encyclopedia in the vehicle articles. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Springee You mention weight, in my reading of WP:NPOV weight is used to apply to neutrality, so no viewpoint is given undue weight. But Facts are neutral, and the weight principle does not apply to facts per my understanding. (some people may be emotionally affected by the facts, but that is a different situation.) Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
NPOV deals both with balancing differing opinions as well as balance the relative coverage of material in an article. I think if you ask you will find almost no editors who think WEIGHT etc only apply when facts or interpretations aren't in agreement. Turning the question around, assume someone found a reliable article that said Ford contracted with company X to provide toilette paper for the bathrooms in their HQ building through 2018. Would you feel such material should be included in the main Ford article. What policy or guideline would you use to remove such reliable yet insignificant material from the article? Springee (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's more comparable to saying that Ford contracted with Michelin for tires for its trucks. But whichever, the Wikipedia policy is that we use prominence in reliable sources to determine weight, not our own views of what is significant or important. If 100 good sources talk about something then it is deemed more important than something which only mentioned in a couple of obscure sources. Is there any other objective way described in WP policies to decide on content? Felsic2 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
SpringeeNPOV deals with balancing different viewpoints, the analogy is balancing weights on a balancing scale to keep the two scales in balance to provide a neutral point of view, not to exclude neutral facts from an encyclopedia. I think people misinterprept NPOV and weight, and misapply it, like the same misapply with WP:Trivia. Regarding your example, there is no policy to exclude the fact. Person A may think the fact is important to add, and build into a Ford HQ supplies contract section; Person B may think the fact is not important and irrelevant, then discussions follow. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
NPOV and the subsections on weight and balance aspects make it clear that it applies to how we balance reliable information within an article. This is why I mentioned my Ford bathroom example to illustrate the point. What policy or guideline would we use to remove information about Ford's bathroom product supplier (from a RS) from the main Ford article? WEIGHT and BALASP (and perhaps others) are the important policies in this hypothetical example even though the example doesn't deal with matters of relative opinion or interpretation. Springee (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both, especially in the lead section, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:TRIVIA, etc. No need for trivia. Instaurare (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Neither of those pages prevent this material. In fact, just the opposite. WEIGHT says to include things based on ther prominence in reliable source: this material is reported in more and better sources than all the other content in the articles. TRIVIA says to preserve information, just not to create sections for it. I agree that the lead isn't the best place though. Felsic2 (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Instaurare, the text is not being proposed for the lead, The 2 sections you mentioned do not exclude the neutral facts from an encyclopedia. I also do not consider the facts "trivia". Thank youCuriousMind01 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Support both. It wouldn't hurt to place a small mention of the attacks on the cars' respective pages. Many other pages contain less-related trivia or see-also links which nevertheless increase the depth of content. These articles are no different. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy of replies from article talk pages: These are replies posted under the RfC notices on the article talk pages.

Delete content It's not so much because of its notoriety/relevance, but there is another reason for deleting this content. It is relating to a specific vehicle produced in 1993 involved in a 1995 incident. The vehicle that is referred to on this talk page did not begin production until 2000, five years later. In other words, if anywhere, that content belongs on Ford F-Series seventh generation in the subsections related to the medium-duty trucks. SteveCof00[[14]]
I read this as move content comment, which was written when the F-700 search result went to the F-650 article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I read it as the editor wasn't sure the information should be in the article in any case but he was certain it shouldn't be in the F-650 article (note that the content was removed then restored to the F-650 article). Thus the comment may not address if we should have it in any F-700 article but the editor was certain it shouldn't be where it is now. Springee (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody would need to speculate on what SteveCof00 intended to say if you hadn't copy-pasted his comment from it's original context. We don't do that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis, SteveCof00 replied to the RfC notice at the F-650 article. His comment clearly applied to the discussion and it's quite possible he didn't realize that the actual RfC discussion was here vs on the article talk page. Most of the time an RfC about an article is actually at the article's talk page, but not in this case. I did this for ALL editors who replied to the RfC notices on the F-650 and Caprice talk pages. Links were included for verification purposes. The editors were pinged as well. Springee (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You may not stage-manage RfCs, or make assumptions about what other people intend. It's not acceptable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
No... I object to and oppose the addition of said information. RAF910 [[15]]

Please note that replies to the above comments were not copied. Springee (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No... I object to and oppose the addition of said information.--RAF910 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
RAF910 But what are your encyclopedia reasons for your position? CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:ONUS. The person adding the information has to convince his follow editors that the information has encyclopedic value, not the other way around. And, I object to adding a body count to these articles. If you don't understand my position, then read WP:NOT LISTENING. I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time.--RAF910 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both inclusions of the events in the car articles, per the spirit of WP:COOKIE.
For each of those, the event itself is plainly notable, and the use of a car/truck was an essential component of the plan, so mention of the model is not undue weight in the event articles. However, any similar car/truck could have been used with essentially the same results. If in the other direction the event did not affect the car (which could be sales, design etc. but I think pretty much any sourced info that the average person knows about that use of the car would be enough), I see no reason for the mention.
Note: I was summoned by the bot and have not read the whole thing, since some parts did not seem very useful. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

CCOC, Crosley Cars Owners Club[edit]

The CCOC original club remains as a part of Service Motors, continuing yet today as a supplier of Crosley parts. The current internet CCOC has no relation to the original one, but continues as a marketing and communications outlet outside of the Crosley Automobile Club or Service Motors, Inc.

Fred Syrdal editor, CROSLEY Quarterly and national board member, Crosley Automobile Club, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.231.91 (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any sources to that cover this club, in any incarnation, at all. It looks like the club had a classified ad int he back of Popular Mechanics just about every month in the 1950s, and some other car publications mention them in upcoming events calendars. The article Powel Crosley, Jr. says nothing at all about any club, and the biography Crosley: Two Brothers and a Business Empire That Transformed the Nation never mentions any Crosley Automobile Club, Inc. or Crosley Cars Owners Club. So it Crosley Car Owners Club should probably be nominated for deletion. It seems like it could be redirected to Crosley or [Powel Crosley, Jr.]], but we don't have a single source to cite in support of that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Chevrolet Bolt as a Crossover[edit]

It was suggested that I come here for help resolving a question of classification of the Chevrolet Bolt. The Bolt website states: "This crossover does not compromise." [16] Scroll down, select "Cargo" tab. The Bolt order guide is listed under the "Chevrolet Truck" section as a "5-Door Crossover." [17] Select "Bolt EV" from dropdown at top right. The Kia Soul is classified by Wikipedia as a Subcompact crossover. I believe the Kia Soul and Chevrolet Bolt should be classified the same way. The two are nearly identical in exterior dimensions[18] and both are front wheel drive, tall wagons. Their respective manufacturers refer to them as crossovers. What's the consensus? Please participate at Talk:Chevrolet Bolt and/or discuss here as appropriate. Many thanks. Freeinfo (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)