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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be added to the article?
Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. [1] [2] [3] In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. [4] In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. [3] [5] Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. [6] [1] In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; [7] in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; [8] [9] in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. [10] In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." [2] [11] [12] [13] Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. [14]
References
But its vehicles also dominate the bottom rungs of the annual auto-reliability ratings by Consumer Reports magazine.
On Tuesday, Consumer Reports singled out Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in the publication's annual Automotive Brand Report Card as having vehicles lacking in quality. "All Fiat Chrysler brands finished in the bottom third of the rankings, with Fiat coming last," Consumer Reports wrote in a statement...Consumer Reports' criticism of the Italian-American automaker is just the latest in a string of reliability concerns stemming from the company's products.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV brands were ranked at the bottom of an influential quality survey released Wednesday, the latest sign that the Italian-U.S. auto maker is struggling to keep up with mainstream rivals at home and abroad.
Quality was abysmal. Every model in the company's Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands ranked in the bottom 25 percent in the J. D. Power & Associates survey of customer satisfaction.
A new survey measuring the satisfaction of people taking their vehicles into dealerships for service ranks five Fiat Chrysler brands as the worst in the auto industry. The company's Jeep nameplate received the worst ratings among all 20 brands in the J.D. Power Customer Service Index...
Chrysler historically has performed poorly in Consumer Reports' reliability ratings...
Some things didn't change from the 2009 survey: Scion finished in first place again — Japanese nameplates took seven of the top 10 spots — and Chrysler ranked lowest among all brands. Again...The rankings come from the 2010 Annual Car Reliability Survey...
...Consumer Reports said in its latest Annual Auto Reliability Survey...Scores improved for Ford and Lincoln, but Chrysler's brands were near the bottom of the heap.
The Fiat-Chrysler brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat) finished at or near the bottom again.
The 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey relied on data from more than 740,000 vehicles...Fiat-Chrysler products took five of the seven bottom spots.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles brands had an especially bad showing this year as all four brands ranked by the magazine finished at or near the bottom...FCA's Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep and Fiat brands were all ranked 25th or lower. Ram was left off the list because the magazine only tested one model, the Ram 1500, and only ranks brands where at least two models have been tested.
...in Consumer Reports' latest annual report card on brand reliability and road-test performance...Fiat Chrysler brands finished near the bottom of the rankings.
...2016 Brand Report Card...Four Fiat Chrysler brands were among the worst six ratings.
This is a phenomenon with Chrysler that goes back since we've been doing this really, showing that they've hovered near the bottom.
Hugh ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments? Hugh ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands, WP:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies. Hugh ( talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) update to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles Hugh ( talk) 15:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Hugh ( talk) 16:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC) notice to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada Hugh ( talk) 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Michigan/Detroit Hugh ( talk) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Trucks Hugh ( talk) 18:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:RSN Hugh ( talk) 15:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:ORN Hugh ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Michigan Hugh ( talk) 03:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please stop spamming notices Your notices since April 18th have become excessive. Certainly additional notices after the RfC period is over have moved from appropriate to inappropriate notification. [1] It's time to let it go. Springee ( talk) 04:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you to all for your engagement in this dispute resolution effort. Good discussion. We will extend the RfC comment period by one week in order to facilitate broadening community participation on this proposal beyond the four (4) new editorial voices who have so far joined our discussion on this article talk page and to more accurately assess community consensus. Thank you again. Hugh ( talk) 19:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Chrysler has had multiple bankruptcies, bailouts, and ignoble changes of ownership cries out for explanation. Why Chrysler and not GM or Ford? There is no omniscient explanation, only opinions. The data from JD Power, the opinions of Consumer Reports, the judgement of analysts and historians is exactly what belongs in this, or any article. There is no policy to support expunging any whiff of criticism until it is perfectly balanced -- an impossible standard to meet -- only the goal that we must "strive for" neutrality. Wikipedia:Five pillars repeats that point three times. In order for content to strive for perfection, the content first needs to exist. Stonewalling is the death of open, collaborative editing.
Instead of edit warring over whether or not to close this discussion, you should recognize the lack of consensus for closing it, and request a decision by an third party Admin, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Or should I revert your revert? That would be silly. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: A Google news search for Chrysler turns up ~3.5 million hits. So based on a pure measure of weight the recall articles cited above are insignificant. However, beyond that, in the discussions above this RfC it's clear that most editors understand that when you are dealing with a topic as big as one of the largest and most significant industrial organizations of the last 100 years we can't include everything even if it was discussed recently in the news. We must maintain a long term, perspective and avoid issues of WP:NOTNEWS. Recalls and other such information is valid material for a car company's parent article but only in the most significant cases such as the Toyota recall which ended up before Congress. The material in question simply doesn't rise to the level of significant (lacks WP:weight) when compared to the scope of this article. It would be like insisting that WP's World War 2 article discuss the failure to rescue the USS Indianapolis sailors. Yes, the ship's sinking is widely discussed in RSs but it is an insignificant topic in perspective to the total war. Springee ( talk) 00:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Support as proposer. The proposed content is highly relevant and due weight. The article is about a manufacturer, but currently our article has no content about the reception by consumers of its products or independent evaluations of its products. Meanwhile, vast noteworthy reliable sources include content related to general comments about the quality, reliability, and reception of its products. Reliable sources cited in support of this content exhibit a strong consensus spanning decades, from the 1990's to the present, and generalizing across the entire product line (rather than specific to any particular make or model). The exclusion of this topic from the current article requires ignoring multiple noteworthy reliable sources, and so is non-neutral WP:DUE. The article is currently at Prose size 28 kB (4455 words) "readable prose size", about 56% of when length might be considered an issue WP:PAGESIZE; we have room for some highly relevant content summarizing noteworthy reliable sources on the reception and evaluations of this manufacturer's products WP:YESPOV. A subject simply may not have such scale or have such a august history that a neutral article is impossible. The reputation of the quality of this manufacturer is a prominent aspect of this manufacturer, and readers cannot take our article seriously if this content is excluded. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC) The current article violates policy, specifically, our neutrality pillar; please see WP:CLOSE#Policy. The current article non-neutrally excludes numerous noteworthy reliable sources and currently includes no facts, events, or significant opinions which might be considered unfavorable or unflattering to the subject. The RfC proposed content partially addresses this violation. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC) As per WP:CLOSE, formal closure by a neutral, uninvolved administrator is respectfully requested, since neutrality is at issue, and the discussion has at times been contentious. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Extensive polemical statements do not contribute value to the discussion. Even if referenced, the recent recalls or rankings (that originate mainly from one source, but are extensively replicated by numerous "reliable" outlets) are not notable to the main topic of this WP article, which serves to provide readers with an outline of the almost 100 years of an automaker's history, operations, products. CZmarlin ( talk) 15:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The 2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee very soon became the most awarded SUV - Ever.
Could this be more balanced? Could it be expanded to cite more postitive and nuanced critical reception? Could it be expanded to trace the JD Power and other rankings over a longer span of time? Yes, of course. Any article could grow in these ways. That's not a reason to nuke any and all critical reception until it has perfect balance. Maybe on a biography of a living person you could make that case, but a company is not a living person and such stringent rules of balance do not apply. Put it in the article so that others can go to work and build the encyclopedia. There needs to be something there before "anybody can edit" it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
If you really think there's a basis for expunging this sort of information from articles, by all means cite it. But read carefully because I think you'll find the policies, just like my comments, do not say what you think they say. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
A majority of your notable "reliable" reference sources, uses information that comes from a third party opinion survey magazine company, named Consumer Reports. All Wikipedia encyclopedic information and reference sources must be verified and most importantly reliable, which means "trustworthy." Not all information that is published in magazines and newspapers are accurate and reliable, even if this information is repeated in many different publication sources.
Below are some interesting published facts concerning Consumer Reports and it not be reliable or trustworthy in its annual car reliability report card ratings ...
"For many years, American auto industry advocates have accused Consumer’s Union and its Consumer Reports publication of being biased against domestic American brands. It’s been said that if the identical car were manufactured by Toyota and Chevrolet Chevrolet , CR would rate the Toyota above the Chevy simply based on nameplate. But Consumer Reports always claimed it was nothing but the soul of objectivity.
Now it turns out they were dissembling, if not outright lying, about their objectivity – and their standards. Consumer Reports has been recommending the Toyota brand without bothering to test it or even have any data about reliability to back up the recommendation.'"' (source: Top Speed magazine -10/17/2007)
"Consumer Reports says it’s the reliability scores that are primarily keeping Chrysler from being competitive. But now the publication is acknowledging there are large swaths of missing reliability data for the automaker, according to Ward’s Automotive." (source: Cars.com 03/06/2011)
Historianbuff (
talk)
01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Consumer Reports has been challenged at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in the past and has easily won consensus that it meets our standards by a mile. You could try once again to change that at WP:RSN, but I'd not put money on it.
You could certainly add nuance to the story of quality and reliability comparisons between the Detroit automakers over time, but in order to get to a fully contextualized, balanced, nuanced article, we have to let editors expand the article. Holding every edit to a standard of NPOV perfection is the end of growth of Wikipedia. Only BLPs approach such a high standard. For everything not a BLP (and corporations are not people), the broad consensus is that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that means in order to move incrementally from a flawed article to a better article, the flawed article, or flawed content, must first exist. Stonewalling like this, because there are nits (and there are always nits) destroys the collaborative, incremental process that Wikipedia is built on. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, In a recent WP:ARE you have been arguing that you are editing in the best interest of WP and that your efforts are not disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert, Laser brain, and Dennis Brown have thus far given you the benefit of the doubt and not blocked your editing for 30 days. Less than a month ago you were strongly advised to back away from this topic and the Ford Pinto topic in an ANI [ [9]]. The editors of the Pinto article even went as far as requesting a topic ban based on your edits [10] noting that you followed me to this topic as a form of harassment. Rather than taking the hint and assuming a lower profile and more cordial behavior you are returning to WP:TEND behaviors. This ARE hasn't gone the way you hoped so you started campaigning in the last few days and have attempted to extend it. The way I read it, your proposed text is dead in the water. Some aspect of the content should be considered but I would ask that you back away from the topic as others have suggested. Certainly you should not start a new edit war. Springee ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I also disagree with the claim made by more than one participant that the proposed text has been rejected. There is a 5 to 4 deadlock, with no clear consensus. It has been neither rejected nor accepted. There is general agreement that discussion of Chrysler's past should be balanced, with context, comparison with others so Chrysler's sins are held in the same light as other automakers, and due credit is given for Chrysler's successes as well as errors or failures. I say WP:SOFIXIT: instead of bickering over what is wrong with this proposal, why not write something that most of us can agree on?
There's no further need to edit war over whether or not to extend this RfC. I've requested closure by a third party at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. WP:3RR has already been violated in spirit, and more reverts are likely to be interpreted as crossing the bright line. Please do not revert again, ATTN: @ HughD: @ Springee: @ CZmarlin: @ Arthur Rubin:. Let somebody else decide and then let it go. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with the closer's reasoning, but I am not going to request reconsideration. It is a plausible, but I believe inaccurate, summary of the arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, I think a good argument can be made for including quality survey information in the Chrysler article. The above RfC is problematic because it asks editors to approve an exact text and doesn't state where it should be added. I'm starting this section to ask where we should add such material in the current article structure. I'm not proposing any text at the moment but I'm presuming that would also be discussed here. I would think the material should live under the "United States sales" subheading. I would leave Fiat brand information out of the discussion and only consider FCA's US brands. Material covering Fiat (and perhaps Ferrari) should be under [Fiat_Chrysler_Automobiles]. Springee ( talk) 01:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The only thing that is problematic is taking a simple question about adding some stuff on an article -- something people do thousands of times a day -- and over-dramatizing it into some sort of grave, irrevocable, world-altering decision. Possibly due to obsessive Wikihounding of the person who proposed the RfC? I'm not the first editor to suggest that a little personal distance would help the situation, and give a little needed perspective. I don't think I'll be the last. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Getting back to the article's subject itself, and the public's low estimation of Chrysler's quality, we need to trace the history of Lee Iacocca introducing the industry's first 5 year/50,000 mile warranty as both a way to address the perceived low quality, and a top-down goad to force the company's divisions to improve quality or face expensive warranty repairs. Next Chrysler upped the ante to a 7 year warranty, again, because quality was a driving concern, sometimes real, sometimes only perceived. And then a lifetime warranty. It is a complicated story. Nitpicking about the imperfections of CR or JDP misses the forest for the trees, and is off topic. We have articles on Consumer Reports and JD Power for anyone who wishes to delve deeper into those questions. Your addition is a start but there is much more to be added. Some of it will not reflect well on Chrysler, but that is allowed. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Where, precisely, in WP:NOTNEWS does it say anything even remotely similar to your claim: "Consumer Reports issues it's ratings every year. A number of sources re-report the information each year. As an individual data point the 2014 results are not encyclopedic."? Where does it say that?
Here, let's just quote the entire thing:
Wikipedia is not a newspaper
As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:
- Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
- News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
- Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
- A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be added to the article?
Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. [1] [2] [3] In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. [4] In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. [3] [5] Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. [6] [1] In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; [7] in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; [8] [9] in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. [10] In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." [2] [11] [12] [13] Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. [14]
References
But its vehicles also dominate the bottom rungs of the annual auto-reliability ratings by Consumer Reports magazine.
On Tuesday, Consumer Reports singled out Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in the publication's annual Automotive Brand Report Card as having vehicles lacking in quality. "All Fiat Chrysler brands finished in the bottom third of the rankings, with Fiat coming last," Consumer Reports wrote in a statement...Consumer Reports' criticism of the Italian-American automaker is just the latest in a string of reliability concerns stemming from the company's products.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV brands were ranked at the bottom of an influential quality survey released Wednesday, the latest sign that the Italian-U.S. auto maker is struggling to keep up with mainstream rivals at home and abroad.
Quality was abysmal. Every model in the company's Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands ranked in the bottom 25 percent in the J. D. Power & Associates survey of customer satisfaction.
A new survey measuring the satisfaction of people taking their vehicles into dealerships for service ranks five Fiat Chrysler brands as the worst in the auto industry. The company's Jeep nameplate received the worst ratings among all 20 brands in the J.D. Power Customer Service Index...
Chrysler historically has performed poorly in Consumer Reports' reliability ratings...
Some things didn't change from the 2009 survey: Scion finished in first place again — Japanese nameplates took seven of the top 10 spots — and Chrysler ranked lowest among all brands. Again...The rankings come from the 2010 Annual Car Reliability Survey...
...Consumer Reports said in its latest Annual Auto Reliability Survey...Scores improved for Ford and Lincoln, but Chrysler's brands were near the bottom of the heap.
The Fiat-Chrysler brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat) finished at or near the bottom again.
The 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey relied on data from more than 740,000 vehicles...Fiat-Chrysler products took five of the seven bottom spots.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles brands had an especially bad showing this year as all four brands ranked by the magazine finished at or near the bottom...FCA's Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep and Fiat brands were all ranked 25th or lower. Ram was left off the list because the magazine only tested one model, the Ram 1500, and only ranks brands where at least two models have been tested.
...in Consumer Reports' latest annual report card on brand reliability and road-test performance...Fiat Chrysler brands finished near the bottom of the rankings.
...2016 Brand Report Card...Four Fiat Chrysler brands were among the worst six ratings.
This is a phenomenon with Chrysler that goes back since we've been doing this really, showing that they've hovered near the bottom.
Hugh ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments? Hugh ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands, WP:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies. Hugh ( talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) update to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles Hugh ( talk) 15:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Hugh ( talk) 16:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC) notice to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada Hugh ( talk) 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Michigan/Detroit Hugh ( talk) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Trucks Hugh ( talk) 18:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:RSN Hugh ( talk) 15:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:ORN Hugh ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Michigan Hugh ( talk) 03:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, please stop spamming notices Your notices since April 18th have become excessive. Certainly additional notices after the RfC period is over have moved from appropriate to inappropriate notification. [1] It's time to let it go. Springee ( talk) 04:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you to all for your engagement in this dispute resolution effort. Good discussion. We will extend the RfC comment period by one week in order to facilitate broadening community participation on this proposal beyond the four (4) new editorial voices who have so far joined our discussion on this article talk page and to more accurately assess community consensus. Thank you again. Hugh ( talk) 19:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Chrysler has had multiple bankruptcies, bailouts, and ignoble changes of ownership cries out for explanation. Why Chrysler and not GM or Ford? There is no omniscient explanation, only opinions. The data from JD Power, the opinions of Consumer Reports, the judgement of analysts and historians is exactly what belongs in this, or any article. There is no policy to support expunging any whiff of criticism until it is perfectly balanced -- an impossible standard to meet -- only the goal that we must "strive for" neutrality. Wikipedia:Five pillars repeats that point three times. In order for content to strive for perfection, the content first needs to exist. Stonewalling is the death of open, collaborative editing.
Instead of edit warring over whether or not to close this discussion, you should recognize the lack of consensus for closing it, and request a decision by an third party Admin, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Or should I revert your revert? That would be silly. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: A Google news search for Chrysler turns up ~3.5 million hits. So based on a pure measure of weight the recall articles cited above are insignificant. However, beyond that, in the discussions above this RfC it's clear that most editors understand that when you are dealing with a topic as big as one of the largest and most significant industrial organizations of the last 100 years we can't include everything even if it was discussed recently in the news. We must maintain a long term, perspective and avoid issues of WP:NOTNEWS. Recalls and other such information is valid material for a car company's parent article but only in the most significant cases such as the Toyota recall which ended up before Congress. The material in question simply doesn't rise to the level of significant (lacks WP:weight) when compared to the scope of this article. It would be like insisting that WP's World War 2 article discuss the failure to rescue the USS Indianapolis sailors. Yes, the ship's sinking is widely discussed in RSs but it is an insignificant topic in perspective to the total war. Springee ( talk) 00:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Support as proposer. The proposed content is highly relevant and due weight. The article is about a manufacturer, but currently our article has no content about the reception by consumers of its products or independent evaluations of its products. Meanwhile, vast noteworthy reliable sources include content related to general comments about the quality, reliability, and reception of its products. Reliable sources cited in support of this content exhibit a strong consensus spanning decades, from the 1990's to the present, and generalizing across the entire product line (rather than specific to any particular make or model). The exclusion of this topic from the current article requires ignoring multiple noteworthy reliable sources, and so is non-neutral WP:DUE. The article is currently at Prose size 28 kB (4455 words) "readable prose size", about 56% of when length might be considered an issue WP:PAGESIZE; we have room for some highly relevant content summarizing noteworthy reliable sources on the reception and evaluations of this manufacturer's products WP:YESPOV. A subject simply may not have such scale or have such a august history that a neutral article is impossible. The reputation of the quality of this manufacturer is a prominent aspect of this manufacturer, and readers cannot take our article seriously if this content is excluded. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC) The current article violates policy, specifically, our neutrality pillar; please see WP:CLOSE#Policy. The current article non-neutrally excludes numerous noteworthy reliable sources and currently includes no facts, events, or significant opinions which might be considered unfavorable or unflattering to the subject. The RfC proposed content partially addresses this violation. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC) As per WP:CLOSE, formal closure by a neutral, uninvolved administrator is respectfully requested, since neutrality is at issue, and the discussion has at times been contentious. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Extensive polemical statements do not contribute value to the discussion. Even if referenced, the recent recalls or rankings (that originate mainly from one source, but are extensively replicated by numerous "reliable" outlets) are not notable to the main topic of this WP article, which serves to provide readers with an outline of the almost 100 years of an automaker's history, operations, products. CZmarlin ( talk) 15:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The 2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee very soon became the most awarded SUV - Ever.
Could this be more balanced? Could it be expanded to cite more postitive and nuanced critical reception? Could it be expanded to trace the JD Power and other rankings over a longer span of time? Yes, of course. Any article could grow in these ways. That's not a reason to nuke any and all critical reception until it has perfect balance. Maybe on a biography of a living person you could make that case, but a company is not a living person and such stringent rules of balance do not apply. Put it in the article so that others can go to work and build the encyclopedia. There needs to be something there before "anybody can edit" it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
If you really think there's a basis for expunging this sort of information from articles, by all means cite it. But read carefully because I think you'll find the policies, just like my comments, do not say what you think they say. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
A majority of your notable "reliable" reference sources, uses information that comes from a third party opinion survey magazine company, named Consumer Reports. All Wikipedia encyclopedic information and reference sources must be verified and most importantly reliable, which means "trustworthy." Not all information that is published in magazines and newspapers are accurate and reliable, even if this information is repeated in many different publication sources.
Below are some interesting published facts concerning Consumer Reports and it not be reliable or trustworthy in its annual car reliability report card ratings ...
"For many years, American auto industry advocates have accused Consumer’s Union and its Consumer Reports publication of being biased against domestic American brands. It’s been said that if the identical car were manufactured by Toyota and Chevrolet Chevrolet , CR would rate the Toyota above the Chevy simply based on nameplate. But Consumer Reports always claimed it was nothing but the soul of objectivity.
Now it turns out they were dissembling, if not outright lying, about their objectivity – and their standards. Consumer Reports has been recommending the Toyota brand without bothering to test it or even have any data about reliability to back up the recommendation.'"' (source: Top Speed magazine -10/17/2007)
"Consumer Reports says it’s the reliability scores that are primarily keeping Chrysler from being competitive. But now the publication is acknowledging there are large swaths of missing reliability data for the automaker, according to Ward’s Automotive." (source: Cars.com 03/06/2011)
Historianbuff (
talk)
01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Consumer Reports has been challenged at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in the past and has easily won consensus that it meets our standards by a mile. You could try once again to change that at WP:RSN, but I'd not put money on it.
You could certainly add nuance to the story of quality and reliability comparisons between the Detroit automakers over time, but in order to get to a fully contextualized, balanced, nuanced article, we have to let editors expand the article. Holding every edit to a standard of NPOV perfection is the end of growth of Wikipedia. Only BLPs approach such a high standard. For everything not a BLP (and corporations are not people), the broad consensus is that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that means in order to move incrementally from a flawed article to a better article, the flawed article, or flawed content, must first exist. Stonewalling like this, because there are nits (and there are always nits) destroys the collaborative, incremental process that Wikipedia is built on. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, In a recent WP:ARE you have been arguing that you are editing in the best interest of WP and that your efforts are not disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert, Laser brain, and Dennis Brown have thus far given you the benefit of the doubt and not blocked your editing for 30 days. Less than a month ago you were strongly advised to back away from this topic and the Ford Pinto topic in an ANI [ [9]]. The editors of the Pinto article even went as far as requesting a topic ban based on your edits [10] noting that you followed me to this topic as a form of harassment. Rather than taking the hint and assuming a lower profile and more cordial behavior you are returning to WP:TEND behaviors. This ARE hasn't gone the way you hoped so you started campaigning in the last few days and have attempted to extend it. The way I read it, your proposed text is dead in the water. Some aspect of the content should be considered but I would ask that you back away from the topic as others have suggested. Certainly you should not start a new edit war. Springee ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I also disagree with the claim made by more than one participant that the proposed text has been rejected. There is a 5 to 4 deadlock, with no clear consensus. It has been neither rejected nor accepted. There is general agreement that discussion of Chrysler's past should be balanced, with context, comparison with others so Chrysler's sins are held in the same light as other automakers, and due credit is given for Chrysler's successes as well as errors or failures. I say WP:SOFIXIT: instead of bickering over what is wrong with this proposal, why not write something that most of us can agree on?
There's no further need to edit war over whether or not to extend this RfC. I've requested closure by a third party at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. WP:3RR has already been violated in spirit, and more reverts are likely to be interpreted as crossing the bright line. Please do not revert again, ATTN: @ HughD: @ Springee: @ CZmarlin: @ Arthur Rubin:. Let somebody else decide and then let it go. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with the closer's reasoning, but I am not going to request reconsideration. It is a plausible, but I believe inaccurate, summary of the arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, I think a good argument can be made for including quality survey information in the Chrysler article. The above RfC is problematic because it asks editors to approve an exact text and doesn't state where it should be added. I'm starting this section to ask where we should add such material in the current article structure. I'm not proposing any text at the moment but I'm presuming that would also be discussed here. I would think the material should live under the "United States sales" subheading. I would leave Fiat brand information out of the discussion and only consider FCA's US brands. Material covering Fiat (and perhaps Ferrari) should be under [Fiat_Chrysler_Automobiles]. Springee ( talk) 01:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The only thing that is problematic is taking a simple question about adding some stuff on an article -- something people do thousands of times a day -- and over-dramatizing it into some sort of grave, irrevocable, world-altering decision. Possibly due to obsessive Wikihounding of the person who proposed the RfC? I'm not the first editor to suggest that a little personal distance would help the situation, and give a little needed perspective. I don't think I'll be the last. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Getting back to the article's subject itself, and the public's low estimation of Chrysler's quality, we need to trace the history of Lee Iacocca introducing the industry's first 5 year/50,000 mile warranty as both a way to address the perceived low quality, and a top-down goad to force the company's divisions to improve quality or face expensive warranty repairs. Next Chrysler upped the ante to a 7 year warranty, again, because quality was a driving concern, sometimes real, sometimes only perceived. And then a lifetime warranty. It is a complicated story. Nitpicking about the imperfections of CR or JDP misses the forest for the trees, and is off topic. We have articles on Consumer Reports and JD Power for anyone who wishes to delve deeper into those questions. Your addition is a start but there is much more to be added. Some of it will not reflect well on Chrysler, but that is allowed. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Where, precisely, in WP:NOTNEWS does it say anything even remotely similar to your claim: "Consumer Reports issues it's ratings every year. A number of sources re-report the information each year. As an individual data point the 2014 results are not encyclopedic."? Where does it say that?
Here, let's just quote the entire thing:
Wikipedia is not a newspaper
As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:
- Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
- News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
- Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
- A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.