A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 1, 2009, April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2012. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have some doubts about a couple of things here. I've never heard of a supercompact. What would that be? And I've never seen or heard of a four-door Gremlin. Thought I'd give a chance for discussion before I did any editing, though. RivGuySC 18:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Got a thought on the Simpsons--maybe an additional reference. I'm not an expert on the series, but it seems to me I remember a flashback episode where Marge drove a Gremlin while she and Homer were dating. (It was the one where he suggests she wear her hair up--advice which was stricly attended to!) RivGuySC 16:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't this in Waynes World and also in that new TV show 'Heros' (Driven by the woman with split personalities).
From the movie - The Wedding Singer - with Adam Sandler - he drove a gremlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.52.169 ( talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The Hornet had a wheelbase of 108 inches, which, by the definition of the Wikipedia article on mid-size cars, is mid-size. Therefore, I reverted the edits that changed mid-size to compact back to mid-size. Rsduhamel 13:54, 7 April, 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph didn't make much sense, opening with: "Chief stylist Richard A. Teague came up with an ingenious solution;" A solution to what? This was referring back to a previous sentence which had been removed in an earlier edit. I have therefore found and reinstated that text ("AMC knew that Ford and General Motors were coming out with subcompact cars in 1971 but did not have the resources to respond with one of their own.") This sentence was removed by User:66.201.16.203 on 23 April, as part of a wider edit. I don't know why it was removed, but that change made semantic nonsense of the text immediately following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.187.20 ( talk) as of 15:21, June 7, 2006 (UTC)
I've merged content from List of 1971 American Motors automobiles, but since it's a list of specifications sourced from Oct. 1970 Popular Mechanics, I think it's safe to delete the article as long as I provide proper attribution. So here is the article history before I deleted it:
-- Deathphoenix ʕ 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed then replaced the following sentence:
I'm sure my four-seat Gremlin was indeed a true hatchback but that was a long time ago and I was young. Maybe my memory has failed me. The part about the fixed backlight doesn't seem to go with the the rest of the sentence. ??? Rsduhamel 06:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In many car related articles, I'm always curious about the origin of the car's name. It would be great if that kind of info would be available. I'm not much of a car enthusiast, but I am very curious about the motivation behind many car names, especially AMC cars. If someone out there has that kind of knowledge I think it would be an interesting bit of information to include in these articles. -- MattWatt ( talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This section is stuffed with unreferenced performance claims; also a couple of unreferenced quotes. How long should they remain before they are deleted? They appear totally genuine and they add valuable substance to the article, so hopefully whoever added them can also add the references? Otherwise I propose deletion at the end of June 2008 unless others think it would be reasonable to give them more time. Writegeist ( talk) 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The considerable quantity of text summarily deleted does not conform to the definitions or parameters set out in the WP:Fancruft essay (not, please note, a WP policy) which is cited, erroneously, as the basis for deletion. Anyone with a solid grasp of English can see this. E.g., from the essay: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Clearly this does not describe the material deleted. Also worthy of note: use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith.
Once again, stretching good faith to the limit, I can only think this erroneous edit has arisen from a misinterpretation of the English language by an editor whose history shows recurrent problems with it, at least where articles about AMC and AMC products are concerned.
The edit also seems to perpetuate what appears to have become one editor's habitual practice of attempting to suppress any notable, relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced and neutrally presented material that presents an obstacle to the editor's apparently continuing agenda of presenting all AMC products as paragons.
Numerous times already I have asked for this practice to cease. I don't want to go to WP:ANI but I will if I have to.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium for a defunct car manufacturer.
The cut material is notable, V, RS and presented with NPOV.
I shall revert the unwarranted edit. — Writegeist ( talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Among the experimentals, shouldn't there be a mention of the pickoupe AMC financed but never produced? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
One contributor thinks it's worthwhile to hammer into readers that the car was "released on April Fool's Day" of 1970, taking great pains to record that twice in the article. Was that part of the marketing? because I do not see any evidence of same. If not, then the reference should go and it should be merely pointed out that the car came out on 4/1/70. 71.241.70.24 ( talk) 06:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Those of us who have driven Gremlins since the 1970s, and still drive them 30+ years later, would say this is an false statement. : ) AMCKen ( talk) 22:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Beginning with this 2006 edit, the article gave attribution to Dick Teague, based on a book authored by Thomas Hine (author of six books on the 1970s), with this reference. Since then, the article gave unreferenced mention to Bob Nixon.
This was just very recently changed to reflect styling significant attribution to Bob Nixon, based on this reference, a blog entry by Aaron Severson, on 13 October 2007 — on a blog site by Aaaron Severson and credentialed also... by Severson -- in other words without publisher, editorial staff, etc. It isn't likely this sources meets the requirements here for reliability. The blog entry does cite an interview with Bob Nixon and a source ( http://www.torq-o.com/Podcasts/podcasts.html) which is a dead link and unretrievable at waybackarchive.org. As it is, the information is unverifiable.
The former reference seems to meet more criteria as a reliable source, but ultimately perhaps there could be more research to vet both stories further. Perhaps both versions of the story are parts of a whole story, or could be substantiated and included -- especially if a better source could be found to support the Nixon story.
Could we get some discussion on this and perhaps find some improvements that would serve the reader better and more closely meet WP guidelines for sourcing? 14:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
According to the Kammback article, a Kammback design should have the flat surface roughly 50% of the maximum vertical cross section of the vehicle, and that many vehicles with flat rear ends are often called Kammback's in spite of not really being one. Is that not the case here? In this case the rear flat area is about 90% of the cross sectional area of the vehicle, and is tilted the wrong way. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Content was added to the article indicating that the Gremlin has been included in several lists of the "worst cars ever made." These statements were sourced from the Globe and Mail, Canada's major national newspaper and Time magazine. Another editor reverted these additions, calling them POV. I think POV would be cherrypicking negative comments about the Gremlin from longer articles, or picking a little-known, obscure magazine that criticized the Gremlin. In my case, though, I have found two well-known, mainstream Reliable Sources that call the Gremlin one of the worst cars ever made. The reverting editor said that the Globe and Mail and Time content is editorializing.
It is true that WP editors cannot editorialize when they add content (e.g., by adding their own views/opinions to the content), but if a writer published in a RS editorializes--that is makes critical comments about a certain subject, then it can be included. Take for example film articles, which typically include critical comments from movie reviewers, including critics praising the film as the "best film of the year" and other reviewers calling the film the "worst film of the year," with rationales. I feel that the reverting editor does not wish to have negative comments about the Gremlin appear in the WP article, even though they come from a reliable source. I also take issue with the reverting editor's view in his/her edit summary that these Globe and Mail and Time critiques were made 40 years after the fact. The reviews of any product or item may change over time. A film that is considered a great film at the time of its creation (e.g., Breakfast at Tiffany's) may be considered to have problematic elements by 2015 critics (e.g., the racially-stereotyped depiction of a Japanese character by Mickey Rooney).
Added content that was reverted:
OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear OnBeyondZebrax, I am not sure what you are trying to add to the article about the AMC Gremlin. The particular source and author that you are discussing above has already been included in the "Production history and reception" section. The section's text already presents a balance of different opinions about the car in keeping with WP guidelines. You are attempting to duplicate this information. Moreover, your example of the "featured article" about the Macintosh Classic includes only opinions from the time of the marketing of this computer. It does not mention current opinions that this Mac was underpowered in both memory and storage, as well as overpriced with its tiny monitor. Thanks - CZmarlin ( talk) 10:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AMC Gremlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AMC Gremlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Gremlins appeared in Cars 2 among the "lemons". Which is a car that doesn't work right. Booger-mike ( talk) 15:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 1, 2009, April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2012. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have some doubts about a couple of things here. I've never heard of a supercompact. What would that be? And I've never seen or heard of a four-door Gremlin. Thought I'd give a chance for discussion before I did any editing, though. RivGuySC 18:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Got a thought on the Simpsons--maybe an additional reference. I'm not an expert on the series, but it seems to me I remember a flashback episode where Marge drove a Gremlin while she and Homer were dating. (It was the one where he suggests she wear her hair up--advice which was stricly attended to!) RivGuySC 16:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't this in Waynes World and also in that new TV show 'Heros' (Driven by the woman with split personalities).
From the movie - The Wedding Singer - with Adam Sandler - he drove a gremlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.52.169 ( talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The Hornet had a wheelbase of 108 inches, which, by the definition of the Wikipedia article on mid-size cars, is mid-size. Therefore, I reverted the edits that changed mid-size to compact back to mid-size. Rsduhamel 13:54, 7 April, 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph didn't make much sense, opening with: "Chief stylist Richard A. Teague came up with an ingenious solution;" A solution to what? This was referring back to a previous sentence which had been removed in an earlier edit. I have therefore found and reinstated that text ("AMC knew that Ford and General Motors were coming out with subcompact cars in 1971 but did not have the resources to respond with one of their own.") This sentence was removed by User:66.201.16.203 on 23 April, as part of a wider edit. I don't know why it was removed, but that change made semantic nonsense of the text immediately following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.187.20 ( talk) as of 15:21, June 7, 2006 (UTC)
I've merged content from List of 1971 American Motors automobiles, but since it's a list of specifications sourced from Oct. 1970 Popular Mechanics, I think it's safe to delete the article as long as I provide proper attribution. So here is the article history before I deleted it:
-- Deathphoenix ʕ 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed then replaced the following sentence:
I'm sure my four-seat Gremlin was indeed a true hatchback but that was a long time ago and I was young. Maybe my memory has failed me. The part about the fixed backlight doesn't seem to go with the the rest of the sentence. ??? Rsduhamel 06:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In many car related articles, I'm always curious about the origin of the car's name. It would be great if that kind of info would be available. I'm not much of a car enthusiast, but I am very curious about the motivation behind many car names, especially AMC cars. If someone out there has that kind of knowledge I think it would be an interesting bit of information to include in these articles. -- MattWatt ( talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This section is stuffed with unreferenced performance claims; also a couple of unreferenced quotes. How long should they remain before they are deleted? They appear totally genuine and they add valuable substance to the article, so hopefully whoever added them can also add the references? Otherwise I propose deletion at the end of June 2008 unless others think it would be reasonable to give them more time. Writegeist ( talk) 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The considerable quantity of text summarily deleted does not conform to the definitions or parameters set out in the WP:Fancruft essay (not, please note, a WP policy) which is cited, erroneously, as the basis for deletion. Anyone with a solid grasp of English can see this. E.g., from the essay: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Clearly this does not describe the material deleted. Also worthy of note: use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith.
Once again, stretching good faith to the limit, I can only think this erroneous edit has arisen from a misinterpretation of the English language by an editor whose history shows recurrent problems with it, at least where articles about AMC and AMC products are concerned.
The edit also seems to perpetuate what appears to have become one editor's habitual practice of attempting to suppress any notable, relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced and neutrally presented material that presents an obstacle to the editor's apparently continuing agenda of presenting all AMC products as paragons.
Numerous times already I have asked for this practice to cease. I don't want to go to WP:ANI but I will if I have to.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium for a defunct car manufacturer.
The cut material is notable, V, RS and presented with NPOV.
I shall revert the unwarranted edit. — Writegeist ( talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Among the experimentals, shouldn't there be a mention of the pickoupe AMC financed but never produced? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
One contributor thinks it's worthwhile to hammer into readers that the car was "released on April Fool's Day" of 1970, taking great pains to record that twice in the article. Was that part of the marketing? because I do not see any evidence of same. If not, then the reference should go and it should be merely pointed out that the car came out on 4/1/70. 71.241.70.24 ( talk) 06:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Those of us who have driven Gremlins since the 1970s, and still drive them 30+ years later, would say this is an false statement. : ) AMCKen ( talk) 22:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Beginning with this 2006 edit, the article gave attribution to Dick Teague, based on a book authored by Thomas Hine (author of six books on the 1970s), with this reference. Since then, the article gave unreferenced mention to Bob Nixon.
This was just very recently changed to reflect styling significant attribution to Bob Nixon, based on this reference, a blog entry by Aaron Severson, on 13 October 2007 — on a blog site by Aaaron Severson and credentialed also... by Severson -- in other words without publisher, editorial staff, etc. It isn't likely this sources meets the requirements here for reliability. The blog entry does cite an interview with Bob Nixon and a source ( http://www.torq-o.com/Podcasts/podcasts.html) which is a dead link and unretrievable at waybackarchive.org. As it is, the information is unverifiable.
The former reference seems to meet more criteria as a reliable source, but ultimately perhaps there could be more research to vet both stories further. Perhaps both versions of the story are parts of a whole story, or could be substantiated and included -- especially if a better source could be found to support the Nixon story.
Could we get some discussion on this and perhaps find some improvements that would serve the reader better and more closely meet WP guidelines for sourcing? 14:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
According to the Kammback article, a Kammback design should have the flat surface roughly 50% of the maximum vertical cross section of the vehicle, and that many vehicles with flat rear ends are often called Kammback's in spite of not really being one. Is that not the case here? In this case the rear flat area is about 90% of the cross sectional area of the vehicle, and is tilted the wrong way. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Content was added to the article indicating that the Gremlin has been included in several lists of the "worst cars ever made." These statements were sourced from the Globe and Mail, Canada's major national newspaper and Time magazine. Another editor reverted these additions, calling them POV. I think POV would be cherrypicking negative comments about the Gremlin from longer articles, or picking a little-known, obscure magazine that criticized the Gremlin. In my case, though, I have found two well-known, mainstream Reliable Sources that call the Gremlin one of the worst cars ever made. The reverting editor said that the Globe and Mail and Time content is editorializing.
It is true that WP editors cannot editorialize when they add content (e.g., by adding their own views/opinions to the content), but if a writer published in a RS editorializes--that is makes critical comments about a certain subject, then it can be included. Take for example film articles, which typically include critical comments from movie reviewers, including critics praising the film as the "best film of the year" and other reviewers calling the film the "worst film of the year," with rationales. I feel that the reverting editor does not wish to have negative comments about the Gremlin appear in the WP article, even though they come from a reliable source. I also take issue with the reverting editor's view in his/her edit summary that these Globe and Mail and Time critiques were made 40 years after the fact. The reviews of any product or item may change over time. A film that is considered a great film at the time of its creation (e.g., Breakfast at Tiffany's) may be considered to have problematic elements by 2015 critics (e.g., the racially-stereotyped depiction of a Japanese character by Mickey Rooney).
Added content that was reverted:
OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear OnBeyondZebrax, I am not sure what you are trying to add to the article about the AMC Gremlin. The particular source and author that you are discussing above has already been included in the "Production history and reception" section. The section's text already presents a balance of different opinions about the car in keeping with WP guidelines. You are attempting to duplicate this information. Moreover, your example of the "featured article" about the Macintosh Classic includes only opinions from the time of the marketing of this computer. It does not mention current opinions that this Mac was underpowered in both memory and storage, as well as overpriced with its tiny monitor. Thanks - CZmarlin ( talk) 10:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AMC Gremlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AMC Gremlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Gremlins appeared in Cars 2 among the "lemons". Which is a car that doesn't work right. Booger-mike ( talk) 15:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)