![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This page is good so far and it already mentions that there were other factors contributing to this situation, aside from the current predicament of the total american economy. I'm happy with the page as is, but as we move forward, I think we need to keep all the elements of this page that drive that point home. The auto industry crisis has been in the making for some time (due to foreign competition, not due to domestic circumstances), and as such it can be seen as something that is distinct from the Wall Street crisis. I'll put my own bias out in the open: I believe that the inability of the "Big 3" to compete with foreign auto industries is the driving factor behind what we are seeing, and the "Big 3" are trying to avoid mentioning this because
A: they want people to think this is just another symptom of the credit/equity crisis, so it supposedly merits a handout on terms similar to those of wall street. B: they know very well that even if this crisis were solved tomorrow, or if they received 3 times the bailout money they were asking for, it will remain just as hard to compete with foreign companies (and the prospect of the "Big 3" recovering will be just as hopeless). it's no secret that everyone expects that if they get the money, they'll be right back for another handout.
also the page might be able to use a mention of the factories that foreign auto companies own in the US. those factories provide many jobs, the foreign companies behind them are doing fine, and employees at those factories earn about half of what the employees of the "Big 3" make. employees of foreign-owned factories in america are working class americans who earn significantly less than the employees at GM/ford factories, so they will understandably be miffed if the government bails out the Big 3 to subsidize the $80/hr employees at GM factories (not to mention their CEOs who fly to washington in private jets), while the employees of honda's american factories will continue to make $40/hr or less.
24.190.132.242 ( talk) 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I placed a neutral POV check at the top of the article.-- Msr69er ( talk) 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It does not contain encyclopedic content and is worded like a news article. It is simply a list of facts.
It is ironical that the US Government, who consistently preaches free-market policies abroad, would spend billions in bailing-out industries whose present-day woes may be just early signs of their future non-viability.
The protection of non-competitive or doomed companies is in contradiction with a free-market system as opposed to a state-controlled one. There are no in-betweens. - Xufanc ( talk) 09:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, its funny how such companies claim they don't want government interference, and the free market is best left alone, and then when things go tits up, they're all crying for government intervention. I suppose this is just proof that unbridled capitalism doesn't work. The US car industry is doing a very good impression of British Leyland in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e they're making cars that no one wants to buy, that never break into foreign export markets and have huge reliability issues over their European/ Japanese counterparts. Not only that but the unions in both cases almost always got their own way, after months of industrial action. The difference was that British Leyland was nationalised, until it became Austin Rover. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that a sensible way to get over this dispute would be simply to present both sides of the argument, rather along the lines of the Bush vs Obama differences. There are obviously valid points to make on both sides of the fence. If some of the emotion could be removed from some of the comments on this talk page we would have a good basis for an additional section in the article and could get rid of the dipute tag.- Ipigott ( talk) 12:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that both sides of the argument have been clearly put forward in the article, I think it should be in order to remove the tag. Unless there are any objections within the next few hours, I will do so later today.- Ipigott ( talk) 10:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, nice job with this so far. A few ideas; I'll pitch in down the road (keeping busy with the subprime crisis). 1) Mention the Chrysler bailout. There is a historical precedent for a turnaround, with new management and funding. 2) See the following article from NYT regarding a pre-packed bankruptcy and discussion of pros/cons. NY Times - Sorkin 3) Mention the concept that is argued by the Big 3 that a bankruptcy means people won't buy the cars due to long-term warranty concerns, and how to overcome these. 4) How much bailout money are we talking about? Some say $25 billion but on Charlie Rose auto industry expert said $50 billion minimum needed. Great debates by experts here; worth listening to this Charlie Rose Show 5) Talk about industry structure. Big 3 have lots more, smaller dealerships and more brands than successful competitors. These cannot be reformed easily without bankruptcy. 6) Put in some examples of how much more Big 3 pay workers than Toyota (I've heard $70 vs. $50). Thanks and keep up the good work. Farcaster ( talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The article had said:
"While the Asian companies pay their U.S. employees to build cars, the Big Three U.S. automakers pay more than 12,000 employees their full salary and benefits to spend all day solving crossword puzzles, watching TV, and other activities that have nothing to do with building cars. [1]"
But then someone replaced it with:
"There is some concern that the labor policies of American automakers are too costly, as union contracts and employment arrangements sometimes result in pay for non-productive tasks. [2]"
I restored it to the original.
The original text contained specific information and details, so it's interesting to read. The second version was extremely vague and said nothing of interest at all. Readers want specific information. Articles are supposed to match the source. I'm not sure why people keep erasing this. Grundle2600 ( talk) 16:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The newest reorganized version by Farcaster is an improvement. There are two passages on the Job Bank and the first version is flippant and POV. Rjensen ( talk) 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The source says they are paid to spend all day solving crossword puzzles. The article is supposed to match the source. Please stop erasing this from the article. This information is fact, not opinion. It's not pushing POV to have it in the article. On the contrary, to keep taking it out of the article is pushing POV. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm OK with the article not mentioning the crossword puzzles, because at least it now says they were paid to show up for work even though there was no work for them to do. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
if you have text for the new proposals from the auto companies, please post asap thanks Cinnamon colbert ( talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Text of the proposals is at this site.
U.S. Senate Committee site
does anyone have info bias CAR group source high numbers hourly cost workers ? Cinnamon colbert ( talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I dispute the neutrality of this article. In at least two of the sections purporting to present arguments against a bailout, the author then goes on to contradict those arguments. The arguments for the bailout are not contradicted within the same section in this way. Matt2h ( talk) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I just found a paragrpah for one argument that was in the section for the other side, so I moved the paragraph to the appropriate section. I don't think there was any bias intended. Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
12Dec08 – The San Diego Union Tribune says the bailout plan didn’t pass the US Senate last night because they didn’t want to lower the pay of auto workers. It also says the White House might have some extra money to help the auto industry anyway and that the Federal Reserve is allowed to help without taxpayer based funding. -- Chuck ( talk) 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what has been said thus far. However, it is best to mention all potential causes of this crisis, including those that are within the control of the Big Three as well as those that are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph is absolutely fine. However, the next paragraph (after the first line which is uncited, but is mostly a popular opinion, at least I think it is) this reads:
"There are ecology-minded sections of the American public that don't view with sympathy the big automakers background of maximizing profits by deliberately destroying mass-transport systems and privately-owned railways between the 1920s and 60s .[107] The big three are held as guilty of contributing to build a fuel-inefficient nation of commuters living in increasingly more distant suburbs. Facing a saturated car market in the US in the early 1920s GM engaged in in a controversial policy along with road-builders that triggered the massive shift from the mass transportation of the previous century to the 'one-person-one-car' trip of today.[108]"
It doesn't matter that this is cited, this is still heavily NPOV, if not at least in the wrong section. I don't think there are many people who will actually disagree with it, but it's still really, really out of place. It's opinion at best, with links to articles that support the opinion.
Consider me making the argument that black people are genetically inferior, I state it as fact, with links to supporting articles. It doesn't make it a FACT, it's still my own opinion even if I have a link to an article that supports my opinion. In that exact same way, this article is heavily opinionated, and out of place with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.74.161 ( talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Mentions about ecological concerns are not "heavily NPOV". Unlike with genetical inferiority, the argument at hand has nothing to do with "being". The talk is about past practices of the company. What is a clear NPOV violation is using Wikipedia in order to whitewash a non ecologically sound past record of the company's way of maximizing profits. ( Xufanc ( talk) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)).
As it stands, this article is very US centric. I've no issue with such an important issue being covered, but maybe it should be renamed "US Automotive industry crisis of 2008", with the smaller, international paragraphs spun off into their own section? Markb ( talk) 11:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see why it is US centric as the US companies are further up shit creek then their Japanese and European counterparts. Each country should have its own section or a page that links back to this (not the current European section, the U.S.E hasn't ratified its constitution yet and so it should be listed by country). On the other hand, the failure of U.S companies makes very little difference to the rest of the world. The big three are almost stand alone institutions. Chrysler has never managed to sell cars in Europe (remember Talbot anyone - Chryslers attempt at breaking into Europe which flopped and ended up disolving under the ownership of Peugeot in about 1989), Ford only sell cars through 'Ford of Europe' and Volvo, which presumably swim alone and sink alone, while GM only sell cars under the Opel/Vauxhall badges (as well as the occasional Saab), which are only financed from these institutions. To say that the failure of the 'big three' would be global is true, but it would hardly be detrimental outside of the US, and so the article shouldn't be almost soley about the 'big three' as respective European and Asian companies are more woried about their car manufacturers. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 17:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The "shifty" ad is not much use unless we are told who made it. Rjensen ( talk) 00:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Beyond any issue of notability and encyclopedic use (the image has neither), have any of the proponents of keeping the image displayed in this article thought about the fact that neither Ford nor GM nor Chrysler gave Wikipedia or the author of the image any right to use their copyrighted logos in a derogatory manner? The image was created illegally, no fair use policy would protect us against its use. Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world and all of the Big 3 would have a very good defamation case against us for using the words "shitty" to describe their product and implying a conspiracy on the part of the Big 3 to knowingly deceive their customers and take too much money for an inferior product. If they did decide to sue us for libel, "lighten up" will not be a good defence. Wikipedia:Logos states "logos should not be used in contexts which are, taken as a whole, strongly negative". Without repeating to me that this is a joke or a satire, can anyone deny that the logos in the image are used in a strongly negative context? This image is entirely inappropriate, it should be removed and possibly deleted. SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
IF the image is mentioned, it will still be out of place without a separate section mentioning similar humor by SNL (and probably MadTV or whatever parody show is actually funny these days). The image can't be (and isn't) the only thing criticizing the automakers. (Otherwise, I don't care if it's in the article or not.) -- an odd name 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think these new tariffs (which may have already been rolled back) were on USED vehicles. Japanese cars that fail the very stringent "safety" checks in Japan are exported, where they become cheap, reliable transport in Russia & elsewhere. Section needs revision & cites. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 17:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If this crisis still is current, shouldn't the name be changed to "Automotive industry crisis of 2008–2009"? -- Eivind ( t) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction we can find :
Accordingly, they suffered both from relatively cheap models available from abroad, particularly from Japan and to some extent from Europe, and from so-called transplants, i.e. foreign cars manufactured or assembled in the United States.
I think this sentence is quite strage, since that say "USA-company cars were victims of foreign cars, and victim of ofther USA made cars". So... I understand that the big three were the only ones to insist to big mistakes, and that foreign productions are not to blame. Can a native speaker of English improve the sentence to to fit better with the reality (stop to blame foreigners). Yug (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the way the page is divided by nationality. The current European section should be split by nationalities. The current section lumps British, French, German and Italian Industry in altogether. I am going to do propose two alternative models.
1. Either we just divide the section up by country
2. Or we leave European Industry as the main title and then subdivide it and ajust other to match, for example have a title of North American Industry and then divide it by the US and Canada, and do the Same with East Asian Industry and then sub divide it with Japan and Korea.
I just thought I would gain consensus before implementing any of the above suggestions.
Thanks Mtaylor848 ( talk) 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I would do an article that specifically conerns the impact on the US.-- Levineps ( talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is still unbalanced in favor of US coverage and with too much emphasis on falling US market share as opposed to the problem of falling worldwide market volume. It doesn't even mention the first bankrupcy of the crisis - the "European-ish" automaker Saab! Rmhermen ( talk) 15:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The section title "United States" should discuss more about the current efforts and aid that the American government is "lending" to the big three automakers. It should explain all the money lent, and if it is producing any effective changes currently. It should also talk about the financial consequences with aiding these automakers. Lastly it should talk more in-depth on the effect the automotive crisis has on the United States employment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideburton123 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is nothing ever said about the way all jobs making autos will soon be automated so it's wrong to bail out these companies? Stars4change ( talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This statement seems to me very simplist and abusive. USA Big three possible union situation don't means tha labor unions are the cause of the current automotive crisis. Philosophy and logic teach : correlation don't means causality. Indeed :
Also, it seems abusive for me to link labor unions to the current crisis, like if all other auto-makers still successful had not labor unions. Even if one writer notice this way, it stay dubious to enlighten it and claims it to be causative. Yug (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:NMUK.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This page is good so far and it already mentions that there were other factors contributing to this situation, aside from the current predicament of the total american economy. I'm happy with the page as is, but as we move forward, I think we need to keep all the elements of this page that drive that point home. The auto industry crisis has been in the making for some time (due to foreign competition, not due to domestic circumstances), and as such it can be seen as something that is distinct from the Wall Street crisis. I'll put my own bias out in the open: I believe that the inability of the "Big 3" to compete with foreign auto industries is the driving factor behind what we are seeing, and the "Big 3" are trying to avoid mentioning this because
A: they want people to think this is just another symptom of the credit/equity crisis, so it supposedly merits a handout on terms similar to those of wall street. B: they know very well that even if this crisis were solved tomorrow, or if they received 3 times the bailout money they were asking for, it will remain just as hard to compete with foreign companies (and the prospect of the "Big 3" recovering will be just as hopeless). it's no secret that everyone expects that if they get the money, they'll be right back for another handout.
also the page might be able to use a mention of the factories that foreign auto companies own in the US. those factories provide many jobs, the foreign companies behind them are doing fine, and employees at those factories earn about half of what the employees of the "Big 3" make. employees of foreign-owned factories in america are working class americans who earn significantly less than the employees at GM/ford factories, so they will understandably be miffed if the government bails out the Big 3 to subsidize the $80/hr employees at GM factories (not to mention their CEOs who fly to washington in private jets), while the employees of honda's american factories will continue to make $40/hr or less.
24.190.132.242 ( talk) 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I placed a neutral POV check at the top of the article.-- Msr69er ( talk) 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It does not contain encyclopedic content and is worded like a news article. It is simply a list of facts.
It is ironical that the US Government, who consistently preaches free-market policies abroad, would spend billions in bailing-out industries whose present-day woes may be just early signs of their future non-viability.
The protection of non-competitive or doomed companies is in contradiction with a free-market system as opposed to a state-controlled one. There are no in-betweens. - Xufanc ( talk) 09:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, its funny how such companies claim they don't want government interference, and the free market is best left alone, and then when things go tits up, they're all crying for government intervention. I suppose this is just proof that unbridled capitalism doesn't work. The US car industry is doing a very good impression of British Leyland in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e they're making cars that no one wants to buy, that never break into foreign export markets and have huge reliability issues over their European/ Japanese counterparts. Not only that but the unions in both cases almost always got their own way, after months of industrial action. The difference was that British Leyland was nationalised, until it became Austin Rover. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that a sensible way to get over this dispute would be simply to present both sides of the argument, rather along the lines of the Bush vs Obama differences. There are obviously valid points to make on both sides of the fence. If some of the emotion could be removed from some of the comments on this talk page we would have a good basis for an additional section in the article and could get rid of the dipute tag.- Ipigott ( talk) 12:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that both sides of the argument have been clearly put forward in the article, I think it should be in order to remove the tag. Unless there are any objections within the next few hours, I will do so later today.- Ipigott ( talk) 10:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, nice job with this so far. A few ideas; I'll pitch in down the road (keeping busy with the subprime crisis). 1) Mention the Chrysler bailout. There is a historical precedent for a turnaround, with new management and funding. 2) See the following article from NYT regarding a pre-packed bankruptcy and discussion of pros/cons. NY Times - Sorkin 3) Mention the concept that is argued by the Big 3 that a bankruptcy means people won't buy the cars due to long-term warranty concerns, and how to overcome these. 4) How much bailout money are we talking about? Some say $25 billion but on Charlie Rose auto industry expert said $50 billion minimum needed. Great debates by experts here; worth listening to this Charlie Rose Show 5) Talk about industry structure. Big 3 have lots more, smaller dealerships and more brands than successful competitors. These cannot be reformed easily without bankruptcy. 6) Put in some examples of how much more Big 3 pay workers than Toyota (I've heard $70 vs. $50). Thanks and keep up the good work. Farcaster ( talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The article had said:
"While the Asian companies pay their U.S. employees to build cars, the Big Three U.S. automakers pay more than 12,000 employees their full salary and benefits to spend all day solving crossword puzzles, watching TV, and other activities that have nothing to do with building cars. [1]"
But then someone replaced it with:
"There is some concern that the labor policies of American automakers are too costly, as union contracts and employment arrangements sometimes result in pay for non-productive tasks. [2]"
I restored it to the original.
The original text contained specific information and details, so it's interesting to read. The second version was extremely vague and said nothing of interest at all. Readers want specific information. Articles are supposed to match the source. I'm not sure why people keep erasing this. Grundle2600 ( talk) 16:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The newest reorganized version by Farcaster is an improvement. There are two passages on the Job Bank and the first version is flippant and POV. Rjensen ( talk) 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The source says they are paid to spend all day solving crossword puzzles. The article is supposed to match the source. Please stop erasing this from the article. This information is fact, not opinion. It's not pushing POV to have it in the article. On the contrary, to keep taking it out of the article is pushing POV. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm OK with the article not mentioning the crossword puzzles, because at least it now says they were paid to show up for work even though there was no work for them to do. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
if you have text for the new proposals from the auto companies, please post asap thanks Cinnamon colbert ( talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Text of the proposals is at this site.
U.S. Senate Committee site
does anyone have info bias CAR group source high numbers hourly cost workers ? Cinnamon colbert ( talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I dispute the neutrality of this article. In at least two of the sections purporting to present arguments against a bailout, the author then goes on to contradict those arguments. The arguments for the bailout are not contradicted within the same section in this way. Matt2h ( talk) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I just found a paragrpah for one argument that was in the section for the other side, so I moved the paragraph to the appropriate section. I don't think there was any bias intended. Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
12Dec08 – The San Diego Union Tribune says the bailout plan didn’t pass the US Senate last night because they didn’t want to lower the pay of auto workers. It also says the White House might have some extra money to help the auto industry anyway and that the Federal Reserve is allowed to help without taxpayer based funding. -- Chuck ( talk) 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what has been said thus far. However, it is best to mention all potential causes of this crisis, including those that are within the control of the Big Three as well as those that are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph is absolutely fine. However, the next paragraph (after the first line which is uncited, but is mostly a popular opinion, at least I think it is) this reads:
"There are ecology-minded sections of the American public that don't view with sympathy the big automakers background of maximizing profits by deliberately destroying mass-transport systems and privately-owned railways between the 1920s and 60s .[107] The big three are held as guilty of contributing to build a fuel-inefficient nation of commuters living in increasingly more distant suburbs. Facing a saturated car market in the US in the early 1920s GM engaged in in a controversial policy along with road-builders that triggered the massive shift from the mass transportation of the previous century to the 'one-person-one-car' trip of today.[108]"
It doesn't matter that this is cited, this is still heavily NPOV, if not at least in the wrong section. I don't think there are many people who will actually disagree with it, but it's still really, really out of place. It's opinion at best, with links to articles that support the opinion.
Consider me making the argument that black people are genetically inferior, I state it as fact, with links to supporting articles. It doesn't make it a FACT, it's still my own opinion even if I have a link to an article that supports my opinion. In that exact same way, this article is heavily opinionated, and out of place with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.74.161 ( talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Mentions about ecological concerns are not "heavily NPOV". Unlike with genetical inferiority, the argument at hand has nothing to do with "being". The talk is about past practices of the company. What is a clear NPOV violation is using Wikipedia in order to whitewash a non ecologically sound past record of the company's way of maximizing profits. ( Xufanc ( talk) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)).
As it stands, this article is very US centric. I've no issue with such an important issue being covered, but maybe it should be renamed "US Automotive industry crisis of 2008", with the smaller, international paragraphs spun off into their own section? Markb ( talk) 11:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see why it is US centric as the US companies are further up shit creek then their Japanese and European counterparts. Each country should have its own section or a page that links back to this (not the current European section, the U.S.E hasn't ratified its constitution yet and so it should be listed by country). On the other hand, the failure of U.S companies makes very little difference to the rest of the world. The big three are almost stand alone institutions. Chrysler has never managed to sell cars in Europe (remember Talbot anyone - Chryslers attempt at breaking into Europe which flopped and ended up disolving under the ownership of Peugeot in about 1989), Ford only sell cars through 'Ford of Europe' and Volvo, which presumably swim alone and sink alone, while GM only sell cars under the Opel/Vauxhall badges (as well as the occasional Saab), which are only financed from these institutions. To say that the failure of the 'big three' would be global is true, but it would hardly be detrimental outside of the US, and so the article shouldn't be almost soley about the 'big three' as respective European and Asian companies are more woried about their car manufacturers. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 17:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The "shifty" ad is not much use unless we are told who made it. Rjensen ( talk) 00:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Beyond any issue of notability and encyclopedic use (the image has neither), have any of the proponents of keeping the image displayed in this article thought about the fact that neither Ford nor GM nor Chrysler gave Wikipedia or the author of the image any right to use their copyrighted logos in a derogatory manner? The image was created illegally, no fair use policy would protect us against its use. Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world and all of the Big 3 would have a very good defamation case against us for using the words "shitty" to describe their product and implying a conspiracy on the part of the Big 3 to knowingly deceive their customers and take too much money for an inferior product. If they did decide to sue us for libel, "lighten up" will not be a good defence. Wikipedia:Logos states "logos should not be used in contexts which are, taken as a whole, strongly negative". Without repeating to me that this is a joke or a satire, can anyone deny that the logos in the image are used in a strongly negative context? This image is entirely inappropriate, it should be removed and possibly deleted. SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
IF the image is mentioned, it will still be out of place without a separate section mentioning similar humor by SNL (and probably MadTV or whatever parody show is actually funny these days). The image can't be (and isn't) the only thing criticizing the automakers. (Otherwise, I don't care if it's in the article or not.) -- an odd name 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think these new tariffs (which may have already been rolled back) were on USED vehicles. Japanese cars that fail the very stringent "safety" checks in Japan are exported, where they become cheap, reliable transport in Russia & elsewhere. Section needs revision & cites. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 17:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If this crisis still is current, shouldn't the name be changed to "Automotive industry crisis of 2008–2009"? -- Eivind ( t) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction we can find :
Accordingly, they suffered both from relatively cheap models available from abroad, particularly from Japan and to some extent from Europe, and from so-called transplants, i.e. foreign cars manufactured or assembled in the United States.
I think this sentence is quite strage, since that say "USA-company cars were victims of foreign cars, and victim of ofther USA made cars". So... I understand that the big three were the only ones to insist to big mistakes, and that foreign productions are not to blame. Can a native speaker of English improve the sentence to to fit better with the reality (stop to blame foreigners). Yug (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the way the page is divided by nationality. The current European section should be split by nationalities. The current section lumps British, French, German and Italian Industry in altogether. I am going to do propose two alternative models.
1. Either we just divide the section up by country
2. Or we leave European Industry as the main title and then subdivide it and ajust other to match, for example have a title of North American Industry and then divide it by the US and Canada, and do the Same with East Asian Industry and then sub divide it with Japan and Korea.
I just thought I would gain consensus before implementing any of the above suggestions.
Thanks Mtaylor848 ( talk) 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I would do an article that specifically conerns the impact on the US.-- Levineps ( talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is still unbalanced in favor of US coverage and with too much emphasis on falling US market share as opposed to the problem of falling worldwide market volume. It doesn't even mention the first bankrupcy of the crisis - the "European-ish" automaker Saab! Rmhermen ( talk) 15:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The section title "United States" should discuss more about the current efforts and aid that the American government is "lending" to the big three automakers. It should explain all the money lent, and if it is producing any effective changes currently. It should also talk about the financial consequences with aiding these automakers. Lastly it should talk more in-depth on the effect the automotive crisis has on the United States employment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideburton123 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is nothing ever said about the way all jobs making autos will soon be automated so it's wrong to bail out these companies? Stars4change ( talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This statement seems to me very simplist and abusive. USA Big three possible union situation don't means tha labor unions are the cause of the current automotive crisis. Philosophy and logic teach : correlation don't means causality. Indeed :
Also, it seems abusive for me to link labor unions to the current crisis, like if all other auto-makers still successful had not labor unions. Even if one writer notice this way, it stay dubious to enlighten it and claims it to be causative. Yug (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:NMUK.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |