![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 1 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | General Motors streetcar conspiracy received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It appears to me that most of this article is off topic, and displays a clear bias. This article should be specifically about the NCL trial, and the results of that trial. The history of electric transit, buses, etc. is given far more space on this page than the trial itself, and there is an abundance of material presented here that is basically just cherry picked opinion. This page needs a good cleaning and refocusing on the primary subject.
I’d have to disagree that Coachbuilt.com is not a reliable source for the purposes it is used here for, @ JzG:. It’s self-published only in the sense that, say, Stephen King is. I think a look at the history of how and why it was tagged might be useful. Qwirkle ( talk) 09:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Now, it’s run by a car nut by avocation and profession, endorsed by the same, and it’d be a little chancy to use for some aspects of a subject that was literally front-and-center in the War on Cars, but its a damned good convenience cite for other aspects. The opposition to it here, you will note, was driven by POV-pushing IP socks. Qwirkle ( talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
A recent edit to this page that set up automatic archiving was reverted. Automatic-archiving is a concept that is instituted or not instituted according to local consensus but keeping outdated/stale content on this page (over 3 years old) and that hasn't had a response in years doesn't serve the interests of the article or of Wikipedia. The last time content was manually archived was over 3 years ago. So, yeah...this page needs to be archived. And I'm doing that. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
the opening line of the article is "The notion of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged" when it should read "The reality of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged"
Anyone disagree? The reality is that GM and the other major car makers were involved in a criminal conspiracy to ruin mass transit in the USA. 82.10.140.18 ( talk) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This source is both widely factually discredited, and already referenced in the main body. Shouldn’t be in further reading if it’s already in the text...and we really shouldn’t link to inaccurate sources without commentary. Qwirkle ( talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This recent edit adds two excellent citations that should be added to the article. The content added to the lead does not appear to be supported by the citations or the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article so the content goes there first. In the lead, this gives undue emphasis to these two particular explanations that jumped to the head of the line over the explanations provided in the article. Fettlemap ( talk) 17:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
A proper summary in the lead would be much more nuanced because there are good sources as you point out. It would not trivialize the scholarship with a content that reflects none of the sources conclusions. It should not sound like an eighth grade book report. Fettlemap ( talk) 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Trappist the monk: In this edit I did a considerable amount of unintended damage. All I intended to do was add a photo. I have reverted the damage, but in the process also undid your edit because I couldn't untangle the two. My apologies. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bhumstanford (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Osisbe.
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher ( talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
There was a book and documentary discussing this subject, but it seems to have disappeared or I misremembered it. At any rate, there's no link to it here. 2405:9800:B910:DB49:6C81:5BEE:7198:B65D ( talk) 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I am surprised to read the term "urban legend" used in this article. The conviction of the companies, and the result of their actions would hardly constitute an urban legend. This is an important and nationally impacting effort which changed the face of transportation in numerous American cities. Should this phrase, which implies the topic of the entry is, itself, false be altered? 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:4F3:7347:708B:6426 ( talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 1 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | General Motors streetcar conspiracy received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It appears to me that most of this article is off topic, and displays a clear bias. This article should be specifically about the NCL trial, and the results of that trial. The history of electric transit, buses, etc. is given far more space on this page than the trial itself, and there is an abundance of material presented here that is basically just cherry picked opinion. This page needs a good cleaning and refocusing on the primary subject.
I’d have to disagree that Coachbuilt.com is not a reliable source for the purposes it is used here for, @ JzG:. It’s self-published only in the sense that, say, Stephen King is. I think a look at the history of how and why it was tagged might be useful. Qwirkle ( talk) 09:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Now, it’s run by a car nut by avocation and profession, endorsed by the same, and it’d be a little chancy to use for some aspects of a subject that was literally front-and-center in the War on Cars, but its a damned good convenience cite for other aspects. The opposition to it here, you will note, was driven by POV-pushing IP socks. Qwirkle ( talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
A recent edit to this page that set up automatic archiving was reverted. Automatic-archiving is a concept that is instituted or not instituted according to local consensus but keeping outdated/stale content on this page (over 3 years old) and that hasn't had a response in years doesn't serve the interests of the article or of Wikipedia. The last time content was manually archived was over 3 years ago. So, yeah...this page needs to be archived. And I'm doing that. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
the opening line of the article is "The notion of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged" when it should read "The reality of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged"
Anyone disagree? The reality is that GM and the other major car makers were involved in a criminal conspiracy to ruin mass transit in the USA. 82.10.140.18 ( talk) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This source is both widely factually discredited, and already referenced in the main body. Shouldn’t be in further reading if it’s already in the text...and we really shouldn’t link to inaccurate sources without commentary. Qwirkle ( talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This recent edit adds two excellent citations that should be added to the article. The content added to the lead does not appear to be supported by the citations or the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article so the content goes there first. In the lead, this gives undue emphasis to these two particular explanations that jumped to the head of the line over the explanations provided in the article. Fettlemap ( talk) 17:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
A proper summary in the lead would be much more nuanced because there are good sources as you point out. It would not trivialize the scholarship with a content that reflects none of the sources conclusions. It should not sound like an eighth grade book report. Fettlemap ( talk) 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Trappist the monk: In this edit I did a considerable amount of unintended damage. All I intended to do was add a photo. I have reverted the damage, but in the process also undid your edit because I couldn't untangle the two. My apologies. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bhumstanford (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Osisbe.
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher ( talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
There was a book and documentary discussing this subject, but it seems to have disappeared or I misremembered it. At any rate, there's no link to it here. 2405:9800:B910:DB49:6C81:5BEE:7198:B65D ( talk) 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I am surprised to read the term "urban legend" used in this article. The conviction of the companies, and the result of their actions would hardly constitute an urban legend. This is an important and nationally impacting effort which changed the face of transportation in numerous American cities. Should this phrase, which implies the topic of the entry is, itself, false be altered? 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:4F3:7347:708B:6426 ( talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)